Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The UK’s still odds-on favourite for Biden’s first international visit – but could he stopover in Du

123468

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    ydoethur said:

    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.

    If the vaccines turn out to be really good at suppressing transmission, and the virus doesn't mutate too frequently for the vaccine manufacturers to keep up, then it may be possible, eventually, to go for a 'zero Covid' state. But it has to be worldwide, or virtually worldwide. It's absolutely bonkers to think that an individual country - especially one like Scotland which isn't an island, and which has large numbers of international connections - can have a 'zero Covid' policy. Even countries like New Zealand have only bought themselves temporary near-zero status. As soon as they eventually open up, they'll no longer be zero-Covid, but they'll be hoping that by then the vaccine programmes will have been effective enough for the disease not to be too damaging.

    Presumably Nicola Sturgeon realises all this; she's not daft, after all. So she must be playing politics as usual.
    It's a justification for being different to the rest of England because she wasn't able to get her announcement in first as she has always previously managed to do.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,613
    UK vaccinations

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:
    "essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"

    Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
    Are those 20 million doses for us or for the Americans?
    All very opaque. Through Janssen (the J&J subsidiary, in case it gets confusing) the US has bought 100m plus an option for 200m more. The UK has 30m bought, the EU 400m more. Janssen/J&J have also have agreed "in principle" to supply 500m doses to Covax.

    Who gets what when is anyone's guess. But to the extent that the UK has a place in the queue for early delivery, they will be a brilliant way to get say all public service workers done with a single dose.

    I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon will tell us when they are due....
    I thought that the USA had banned vaccine exports. I think Comical Dave is correct on this (though his claims about the UK banning exports of vaccine and medicine are bullshit).

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1362727434404118529

    And according to him, the EU seem to be being a bit less stupid and/or cynical than last time:

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274
    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229990745837571
    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274

  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921
    rcs1000 said:

    slade said:

    HYUFD said:
    This means that some councillors will now serve for 6 years before they have to face the voters again.
    Poor bastards. Is there no way to get some kind of Zoom parole hearing?
    They can just resign - which some are doing. That's why we have so many vacancies at the moment.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,238

    OllyT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    After a simply gloriously sunny day yesterday, rain and wind here today. A reminder that spring weather is unreliable and often far too cold to be outside for any prolonged period, especially in the evening, and in most of the country.

    Very few beer gardens are going to open on the earliest possible date because it is hard to do so profitably during a month when in large parts of the country the weather is often poor and unreliable, which makes planning and ordering stock difficult. Remember also that if you have a tent with sides in the garden it cannot be used as it is classed as "inside space". If it open at the sides then who is going to want to sit in there in the evening open to the elements in April in many parts of the country?

    What would be more useful is allowing takeaway alcohol sales for, gasp, pubs which have been prohibited from doing so, even though off licences and supermarkets have been allowed to.

    Also important in the general rejoicing is to know what is to happen to the support offered to hospitality because currently it is to stop well before venues are allowed to open properly.

    More than a week's notice is needed for opening. Breweries have already said that they will need 2-3 weeks notice to start operations so don't be surprised to find many places not opening until the end of May/ early June. From mid-February until then is a way to go without income and with support significantly less than fixed costs.

    But at least there is a plan and the recognition that zero-Covid is unachievable is a welcome dose of realism.

    Very few restaurants, if any, will find it viable to open up to serve people outside in April in the UK. It's virtually pointless, we are not in the South of France or the Algarve (unfortunately)
    Wrong. Plenty down here will open.
    Yes. A few patio heaters, a dry mild evening, bingo
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:



    I thought those were supposed to be the key variables of when the infection subsides?
    So it's October, November, December, January, or February depending on which country you're looking at, right?
    And it comes and goes away, as well - for example, Czechia (negligible vaccination so far) has had seasonal increasing happening in October, seasonal decreasing happening in November, seasonal increasing in December, decreasing in January, and now increasing again in February.

    While here, we've had a marvellous summer from (checks dates) early January. Looking warmer and better than the summer we had in November after that unpleasant winter in September and October...

    Lockdown helps a lot locally. Globally there is little or no seasonal effect. If Topping is right about Farr's Law, suggesting the virus rips through populations until it starts to find it hard to find bodies to infect, then globally the acute phase of the pandemic peaked on 11-13 January and should be coming to an end at the end of this calendar year - or thereabouts.
    The problem with that theory is that places with the worst bouts of infection in 2020 (like Northern Italy, where it was absolutely brutal), should have done much, much better this year.

    But if you look at the numbers for Lombardy, it did more than twice as badly as the rest of Italy in 2020, and then no better in 2021. So, why shouldn't the rest of Italy not still have a terrible experience to come? (Assuming Farr's law is correct?)
    (Lombardy's cumulative cases and deaths per 100k people are still more than twice the Italian average, so 90% of Italy - on a straight 'herd immunity basis' - can't be more than half way there. In a best case scenario.)
    That would assume that Lombardy is directly comparable with the rest of Italy. That's not necessarily the case. Lombardy is, for a start, the most densly populated part of Italy and also about the coldest. People spend more time indoors there than in Calabria and Sicily.

    The second wave in Lombardy appears not to have been as bad as the first -

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33560897/

    And within Lombardy itself this prevalence map between the first and the second waves is quite striking (although I completely accept that the methodology between the two maps is different and calls it somewhat into question) regarding the different areas that were hit -



    (taken from https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201112/Modeling-suggests-lower-COVID-19-cases-in-Lombardys-second-wave.aspx )

    So there are areas within Lombardy itself that have done a lot better this time around. Closer to home, here in Kent we got off really lightly (comparatively) in the fist wave but clobbered in the second. I don't really like the term "herd immunity" - particulary when applied to whole countries. But I do think within sub-national localities a degree of population immunity is developing to which, over time, vaccine related immunity is added. The number of these localities are increasing which is why we have in recent weeks seen such a remarkable global decrease in cases. That decrease is slowing - it could hardly carry on at the same pace - but it nevertheless happened accross the globe.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    edited February 2021
    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:
    "essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"

    Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
    Are those 20 million doses for us or for the Americans?
    All very opaque. Through Janssen (the J&J subsidiary, in case it gets confusing) the US has bought 100m plus an option for 200m more. The UK has 30m bought, the EU 400m more. Janssen/J&J have also have agreed "in principle" to supply 500m doses to Covax.

    Who gets what when is anyone's guess. But to the extent that the UK has a place in the queue for early delivery, they will be a brilliant way to get say all public service workers done with a single dose.

    I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon will tell us when they are due....
    I thought that the USA had banned vaccine exports. I think Comical Dave is correct on this (though his claims about the UK banning exports of vaccine and medicine are bullshit).

    twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1362727434404118529

    And according to him, the EU seem to be being a bit less stupid and/or cynical than last time:

    twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274
    twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229990745837571
    twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274

    It pains me to say this, but Comical Dave is kinda right on that.

    UK restricts COVID medicine exports amid AstraZeneca vaccine fight

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson says he doesn’t want border ‘restrictions’ for medicines, but that’s what his government is doing.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-export-boris-johnson/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,613
    CROSS OVER KLAXON!

    image

    Yes, the last few days are provisional. But it looks like for cases, 85+ now has the same risk as 45-64......
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Zero Covid is 2 different things though. In countries where it has never been endemic, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia to a large extent it makes total sense.
    We don't have it. Keep it out. Live as normally as possible otherwise.
    It is an entirely different proposition when cases have been out of control.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,394
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.

    If the vaccines turn out to be really good at suppressing transmission, and the virus doesn't mutate too frequently for the vaccine manufacturers to keep up, then it may be possible, eventually, to go for a 'zero Covid' state. But it has to be worldwide, or virtually worldwide. It's absolutely bonkers to think that an individual country - especially one like Scotland which isn't an island, and which has large numbers of international connections - can have a 'zero Covid' policy. Even countries like New Zealand have only bought themselves temporary near-zero status. As soon as they eventually open up, they'll no longer be zero-Covid, but they'll be hoping that by then the vaccine programmes will have been effective enough for the disease not to be too damaging.

    Presumably Nicola Sturgeon realises all this; she's not daft, after all. So she must be playing politics as usual.
    It's a justification for being different to the rest of England because she wasn't able to get her announcement in first as she has always previously managed to do.
    This is about manufacturing a grievance around furlough payments. Nothing more. Nothing less.

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,256

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    AIUI the only reason it was possible to eliminate smallpox in the first place is that the vaccinations were fast acting and effective (and you could always tell when they worked because the injection site erupted in a pustule) and because anyone unlucky enough to be infected with smallpox became seriously ill and erupted all over in pustules.

    Covid, by contrast, is not only highly transmissible but also largely asymptomatic (and if symptoms do appear it takes some time for them to do so.)

    I don't know, I suppose that it might still be possible to eradicate Covid if were really determined to do so, but it would be a gargantuan effort that would involve years of heavy-handed interventions (including cyclical lockdowns) and a resultant level of socio-economic carnage that populations would not be prepared to tolerate.
    I think I'd look at polio as a more relevant comparator than smallpox (for some of the reasons you mention, including asymptomatic infections). Polio is not eradicated yet, despite long efforts and being tantalizingly close.

    Interestingly, there are actually more cases of polio now from attenuated virus vaccinations than from wild polio (the vaccinations used in developed world are inactivated, so that doesn't happen here).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited February 2021

    @MattW It pains me to say this, but Comical Dave is kinda right on that.

    UK restricts COVID medicine exports amid AstraZeneca vaccine fight

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson says he doesn’t want border ‘restrictions’ for medicines, but that’s what his government is doing.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-export-boris-johnson/

    I think that supply to UK gov is a matter of contract because UK invested in the development, so not an "export ban" as in government interference. So normal contracts for export are not affected (if anyone has one :smile: ).

    On the "medicines ban" that Dave calls a 'ban with a few exceptions'. It is actually a ban on grey exports of medicines purchased in the UK market intended for UK patients. Normal exports are allowed.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medicines-that-cannot-be-parallel-exported-from-the-uk
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.

    If the vaccines turn out to be really good at suppressing transmission, and the virus doesn't mutate too frequently for the vaccine manufacturers to keep up, then it may be possible, eventually, to go for a 'zero Covid' state. But it has to be worldwide, or virtually worldwide. It's absolutely bonkers to think that an individual country - especially one like Scotland which isn't an island, and which has large numbers of international connections - can have a 'zero Covid' policy. Even countries like New Zealand have only bought themselves temporary near-zero status. As soon as they eventually open up, they'll no longer be zero-Covid, but they'll be hoping that by then the vaccine programmes will have been effective enough for the disease not to be too damaging.

    Presumably Nicola Sturgeon realises all this; she's not daft, after all. So she must be playing politics as usual.
    It's a justification for being different to the rest of England because she wasn't able to get her announcement in first as she has always previously managed to do.
    This is about manufacturing a grievance around furlough payments. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    "rest of England".

    Oooer.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,768
    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:
    "essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"

    Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
    Are those 20 million doses for us or for the Americans?
    All very opaque. Through Janssen (the J&J subsidiary, in case it gets confusing) the US has bought 100m plus an option for 200m more. The UK has 30m bought, the EU 400m more. Janssen/J&J have also have agreed "in principle" to supply 500m doses to Covax.

    Who gets what when is anyone's guess. But to the extent that the UK has a place in the queue for early delivery, they will be a brilliant way to get say all public service workers done with a single dose.

    I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon will tell us when they are due....
    I thought that the USA had banned vaccine exports. I think Comical Dave is correct on this (though his claims about the UK banning exports of vaccine and medicine are bullshit).

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1362727434404118529

    And according to him, the EU seem to be being a bit less stupid and/or cynical than last time:

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274
    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229990745837571
    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274

    Because of the US export ban (which also affects the UK), Moderna has signed a manufacturing deal with a Swiss maker, and which will be producing close to 1m doses a day by the end of May - all of which will be going to Switzerland, the UK and the EU.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,768
    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:
    "essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"

    Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
    Are those 20 million doses for us or for the Americans?
    All very opaque. Through Janssen (the J&J subsidiary, in case it gets confusing) the US has bought 100m plus an option for 200m more. The UK has 30m bought, the EU 400m more. Janssen/J&J have also have agreed "in principle" to supply 500m doses to Covax.

    Who gets what when is anyone's guess. But to the extent that the UK has a place in the queue for early delivery, they will be a brilliant way to get say all public service workers done with a single dose.

    I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon will tell us when they are due....
    I thought that the USA had banned vaccine exports. I think Comical Dave is correct on this (though his claims about the UK banning exports of vaccine and medicine are bullshit).

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1362727434404118529

    And according to him, the EU seem to be being a bit less stupid and/or cynical than last time:

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274
    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229990745837571
    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274

    Because of the US export ban (which also affects the UK), Moderna has signed a manufacturing deal with a Swiss maker, and which will be producing close to 1m doses a day by the end of May - all of which will be going to Switzerland, the UK and the EU.
    J&J has outsourced all US manufacturing to Emergent Biosciences in Baltimore, but they're not doing any manufacturing for non-US orders.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    edited February 2021
    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    I am not a biologist, but I think COVID is much more difficult to eliminate by vaccine than smallpox, because the former is caused by an RNA virus, which is much more likely to mutate than a DNA virus like the latter. That's why we've eliminated smallpox and polio but not the common cold, and why we're probably stuck with Chinese flu for the foreseeable.

    Of course I'd love to be proved wrong.
  • Leon said:

    OllyT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    After a simply gloriously sunny day yesterday, rain and wind here today. A reminder that spring weather is unreliable and often far too cold to be outside for any prolonged period, especially in the evening, and in most of the country.

    Very few beer gardens are going to open on the earliest possible date because it is hard to do so profitably during a month when in large parts of the country the weather is often poor and unreliable, which makes planning and ordering stock difficult. Remember also that if you have a tent with sides in the garden it cannot be used as it is classed as "inside space". If it open at the sides then who is going to want to sit in there in the evening open to the elements in April in many parts of the country?

    What would be more useful is allowing takeaway alcohol sales for, gasp, pubs which have been prohibited from doing so, even though off licences and supermarkets have been allowed to.

    Also important in the general rejoicing is to know what is to happen to the support offered to hospitality because currently it is to stop well before venues are allowed to open properly.

    More than a week's notice is needed for opening. Breweries have already said that they will need 2-3 weeks notice to start operations so don't be surprised to find many places not opening until the end of May/ early June. From mid-February until then is a way to go without income and with support significantly less than fixed costs.

    But at least there is a plan and the recognition that zero-Covid is unachievable is a welcome dose of realism.

    Very few restaurants, if any, will find it viable to open up to serve people outside in April in the UK. It's virtually pointless, we are not in the South of France or the Algarve (unfortunately)
    Wrong. Plenty down here will open.
    Yes. A few patio heaters, a dry mild evening, bingo
    Sling a few cheap blankets about the place and they'll be packed in April if the weather is alright. Give people a hot water bottle - the punters will see it as a fun novelty. Pensioners may not bother, and fair enough, but you'll be struggling to get a table anywhere decent.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    Crumblies (85+) have reeled in the 45-65 group.....

    That must be the vaccine, surely?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited February 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:
    "essentially 100% at preventing hospitalizations/deaths once they've kicked in"

    Get the under 50s going to 24/7 J&J jab centres.....through April. Huge.
    Are those 20 million doses for us or for the Americans?
    All very opaque. Through Janssen (the J&J subsidiary, in case it gets confusing) the US has bought 100m plus an option for 200m more. The UK has 30m bought, the EU 400m more. Janssen/J&J have also have agreed "in principle" to supply 500m doses to Covax.

    Who gets what when is anyone's guess. But to the extent that the UK has a place in the queue for early delivery, they will be a brilliant way to get say all public service workers done with a single dose.

    I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon will tell us when they are due....
    I thought that the USA had banned vaccine exports. I think Comical Dave is correct on this (though his claims about the UK banning exports of vaccine and medicine are bullshit).

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1362727434404118529

    And according to him, the EU seem to be being a bit less stupid and/or cynical than last time:

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274
    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229990745837571
    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1364229992066998274

    Because of the US export ban (which also affects the UK), Moderna has signed a manufacturing deal with a Swiss maker, and which will be producing close to 1m doses a day by the end of May - all of which will be going to Switzerland, the UK and the EU.
    Thanks - that clarifies.

    Hope it all comes through pdq.

    Time to be useful.
  • Leon said:

    OllyT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    After a simply gloriously sunny day yesterday, rain and wind here today. A reminder that spring weather is unreliable and often far too cold to be outside for any prolonged period, especially in the evening, and in most of the country.

    Very few beer gardens are going to open on the earliest possible date because it is hard to do so profitably during a month when in large parts of the country the weather is often poor and unreliable, which makes planning and ordering stock difficult. Remember also that if you have a tent with sides in the garden it cannot be used as it is classed as "inside space". If it open at the sides then who is going to want to sit in there in the evening open to the elements in April in many parts of the country?

    What would be more useful is allowing takeaway alcohol sales for, gasp, pubs which have been prohibited from doing so, even though off licences and supermarkets have been allowed to.

    Also important in the general rejoicing is to know what is to happen to the support offered to hospitality because currently it is to stop well before venues are allowed to open properly.

    More than a week's notice is needed for opening. Breweries have already said that they will need 2-3 weeks notice to start operations so don't be surprised to find many places not opening until the end of May/ early June. From mid-February until then is a way to go without income and with support significantly less than fixed costs.

    But at least there is a plan and the recognition that zero-Covid is unachievable is a welcome dose of realism.

    Very few restaurants, if any, will find it viable to open up to serve people outside in April in the UK. It's virtually pointless, we are not in the South of France or the Algarve (unfortunately)
    Wrong. Plenty down here will open.
    Yes. A few patio heaters, a dry mild evening, bingo
    Smaller independent operators will get their places open, bigger corporate groups will be slow to respond. Just like Summer 2020.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2021
    Has Comedy Dave managed to work out why no mainstream media outlet other than CNN picked up that mega scoop on the EU signing their AZN contract before the UK? Its a huge scandal (other than the man can't read).
  • dixiedean said:

    Zero Covid is 2 different things though. In countries where it has never been endemic, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia to a large extent it makes total sense.
    We don't have it. Keep it out. Live as normally as possible otherwise.
    It is an entirely different proposition when cases have been out of control.

    Guernsey - which had "close to zero COVID" from June to January and no NPIs for 7 months (apart from the border, which they've had since mid-March 2020) is not attempting "Zero COVID" which our CMO has described as "epidemiologically illiterate".

    We will have "endemic COVID" which will be controlled through test track & trace, border control, quarantine and vaccination. When they discovered (suspected) B117 had made it in at 8pm on the Friday they went into lockdown mid-day on the Saturday. Cases peaked at over 400 - they're now down to 49 and the first phase of unwinding the lockdown has started.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,729
    edited February 2021

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    @Philip_Thompson What do you reckon?

    Trying to unpack my thoughts on the conundrum of Net Satisfaction vs Gross Positives. I wonder, is turnout factored in to the Leader Ratings? If not, I think there is a good case as to why NS is a poorer indicator than GP



    Sir Keir is said to be the more likeable, because his "net like" is three points higher than that of Boris. To me this seems absurd, because more people said they liked Boris (45-36), Sir Keir only wins because he is allocated 50% of those who neither know nor care. Maybe those who neither know nor care are unlikely to vote, and if this is filtered into the numbers, I think it is a different story.

    I am assuming turnout of 70% as a rough guide for when my "Turnout tweak" button is pushed.

    For Boris, 85% of voters have made their mind up about him. I would say a large percentage of the 45 who like him can be thought of as pretty certain to vote for him (I have allowed 10% margin for people who say they like both leaders, but this could be way off the mark) giving Boris a max score of 45 and a min of 40.5. The non voters would be the 15 who don't know and 15 of those who dislike him

    In Sir Keir's case, only 64% of voters have made up their minds about him. It seems that people infer this means 36% of votes are up for grabs. But, as only 70% of people vote, and those without a strong opinion must be less inclined to be voters, only 6% are realistically available to him. So I give him a max vote of 39% (His 36 + half of the undecided's once the turnout tweak button is pushed) and a minimum of 32.4% (his 36% less the 10% who may like both he and Boris)

    I think it's complicated.

    I think for some leaders - like Corbyn - their negatives really matter, and therefore net is a better judge of how he will do than gross. Had I been in the UK, I would have dragged my sorry ass down to the polling station to ensure he wasn't Prime Minister, and who I voted for wouldn't matter. Corbyn's negatives really mattered. (As in, it doesn't matter if 40% of people love you, if the other 60% will go out and vote against you.)

    But in the case of Starmer, I think you're broadly right. People aren't that enthused. That being said... I wouldn't vote against Starmer, either. So while his lack of positives (relative to Boris) is an issue, he will probably benefit from less tactical voting against Labour.
    You're all overanalysing. Net figures are what matters, full stop, balancing out positive and negative opinions. You may refine that a bit by looking at strength of approval both ways. Anything beyond that is highly subjective. All that you can say from a lot of DKs or Neithers is that a lot of people have yet to make up their minds or may not even be aware of the person, so opinion could shift more one way or another if they do.

    Regardless, I am content that at the next general election, the Labour leader is not going to have his face plastered all over or even mentioned on Conservative Party leaflets, the first time that has happened for quite a while. How Starmer compares with the Conservative leader depends on a lot of things, not least who is the Conservative leader. Whether Labour is in contention depends mainly on whether Starmer can convince the public that he has done enough to change the party in his image.
    Why factor in the 30% of people who don't vote?

    Net figures say Sir Keir is rated as more likeable by the public than Boris. That is absurd, and shows why they are wrong
    Isn't Johnson just more polarising on "likeability"? Quite a lot of people think Johnson is "hilarious" and "refreshing". Quite a lot of people think he's an arsehole. You hear both these takes from people who aren't massively political.

    Starmer, on the other hand, is hard to love and also hard to hate. A lot of people either think he's "alright" or "a bit meh".

    Not sure which of those is a better place to be in. But I don't think you should assume, just because Starmer doesn't attract adoring fan-boys, that he's necessarily underwater on likeability - he's just less polarising.

    Ditto Trump/Biden in 2020. Trump's disbelief in his own defeat was partly down to the true fact that, even in normal times, Biden was never going to get Trump's level of adoration from obsessed fans. But their votes aren't worth any more than those of people who thought Biden was somewhat dull but competent.
    The point is that when you have a room full of 100 people, in non Covid times of course, and ask them to answer whether they thought two politicians were

    (a) likeable
    (b)dislikeable or
    (c) they didn't know or care

    if you KNOW that 30 of them wont vote, the last 30 who dislike or don't know are irrelevant.

    So 45/40/15 is better than 36/28/36, because in reality it is 45/70 (65%) - 25/70 (35%) vs 36/64 (56%)- 28/64 (44%)

    So Boris is +30 and Sir Keir is +12

    I think!

    Unless turnout is factored into Leader Ratings, in which I case I have wasted a lot of time working all that out
  • Millions of high-grade masks used in the NHS may not meet the right safety standards and have been withdrawn.

    The Department of Health told the BBC there are 12 million of these masks either in use or in hospital stores and has told staff to stop using them.

    Distribution of some gloves has also been suspended because they may not meet technical requirements.

    The Department of Health said safety of frontline staff was an absolute priority.

    Its warning concerns a specific brand of FFP3 mask, which are more sophisticated than surgical masks and are worn in intensive care or when certain procedures are carried out that can generate aerosols.

    These are tiny virus particles that can build up in stuffy rooms and have been linked to outbreaks of Covid-19.

    The British Medical Association appealed last month for staff on general wards to be given this type of mask to guard against coronavirus infection.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56167916
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Just been reminded that Macron's wife is 67. So how much shit has he had at home about not allowing the AZ vaccine for over 65s?
  • Feels like schools will push the R up close to 1 so I wonder if numbers will stabilise at 5-7k new cases a week during March and April before dipping again into late April as the new rounds of vaccinations take effect.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
    What's the fatality rate for symptomatic covid?
  • dixiedean said:

    Zero Covid is 2 different things though. In countries where it has never been endemic, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia to a large extent it makes total sense.
    We don't have it. Keep it out. Live as normally as possible otherwise.
    It is an entirely different proposition when cases have been out of control.

    Do you think New Zealand are going to isolate to the extent they are now long term? I doubt it (although insert joke about isolation being the norm there anyway for decades).

    They'll thank their lucky stars (and policy approach to an extent to be fair), have a vaccination programme, and reopen as it becomes manageable (at the cost that there will be some level of COVID in NZ).

    Being draconian in response to it makes sense to avoid being like the UK, US or Europe. But it makes much less sense as those areas emerge from it later this year.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2021

    Millions of high-grade masks used in the NHS may not meet the right safety standards and have been withdrawn.

    The Department of Health told the BBC there are 12 million of these masks either in use or in hospital stores and has told staff to stop using them.

    Distribution of some gloves has also been suspended because they may not meet technical requirements.

    The Department of Health said safety of frontline staff was an absolute priority.

    Its warning concerns a specific brand of FFP3 mask, which are more sophisticated than surgical masks and are worn in intensive care or when certain procedures are carried out that can generate aerosols.

    These are tiny virus particles that can build up in stuffy rooms and have been linked to outbreaks of Covid-19.

    The British Medical Association appealed last month for staff on general wards to be given this type of mask to guard against coronavirus infection.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56167916

    Despite purchasing from a British company, underneath its another dodgy batch of Chinese knock off masks / PPE, with the Chinese manufacturer saying not our fault. Same old story.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    Millions of high-grade masks used in the NHS may not meet the right safety standards and have been withdrawn.

    The Department of Health told the BBC there are 12 million of these masks either in use or in hospital stores and has told staff to stop using them.

    Distribution of some gloves has also been suspended because they may not meet technical requirements.

    The Department of Health said safety of frontline staff was an absolute priority.

    Its warning concerns a specific brand of FFP3 mask, which are more sophisticated than surgical masks and are worn in intensive care or when certain procedures are carried out that can generate aerosols.

    These are tiny virus particles that can build up in stuffy rooms and have been linked to outbreaks of Covid-19.

    The British Medical Association appealed last month for staff on general wards to be given this type of mask to guard against coronavirus infection.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56167916

    We'll probably get them in schools instead.

    Although I can only conclude whatever lunatic came up with masks on for all people at all times has never taught a class.
  • Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    Crumblies (85+) have reeled in the 45-65 group.....

    That must be the vaccine, surely?
    Given that's cases not hospitalisations ...

    And given that crumblies have been disproportionately shielding and not working ...

    ... How were they ever ahead per capita in the first place?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,604

    Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    Crikey. Am I reading the final chart correctly? The over-85s have now achieved infection crossover with two younger cohorts??
  • Just been reminded that Macron's wife is 67. So how much shit has he had at home about not allowing the AZ vaccine for over 65s?

    Maybe their relationship is like Wakefield and Elle MacPherson....convinced it pseudo-science.
  • Millions of high-grade masks used in the NHS may not meet the right safety standards and have been withdrawn.

    The Department of Health told the BBC there are 12 million of these masks either in use or in hospital stores and has told staff to stop using them.

    Distribution of some gloves has also been suspended because they may not meet technical requirements.

    The Department of Health said safety of frontline staff was an absolute priority.

    Its warning concerns a specific brand of FFP3 mask, which are more sophisticated than surgical masks and are worn in intensive care or when certain procedures are carried out that can generate aerosols.

    These are tiny virus particles that can build up in stuffy rooms and have been linked to outbreaks of Covid-19.

    The British Medical Association appealed last month for staff on general wards to be given this type of mask to guard against coronavirus infection.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56167916

    Despite purchasing from a British company, underneath its another dodgy batch of Chinese knock off masks / PPE, with the Chinese manufacturer saying not our fault. Same old story.
    Just hope the British company isn't owned by Tory donors.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,256

    Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    Crumblies (85+) have reeled in the 45-65 group.....

    That must be the vaccine, surely?
    Given that's cases not hospitalisations ...

    And given that crumblies have been disproportionately shielding and not working ...

    ... How were they ever ahead per capita in the first place?
    Far more likely (among those infected) to get clear symptoms and take a test?
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    @Philip_Thompson What do you reckon?

    Trying to unpack my thoughts on the conundrum of Net Satisfaction vs Gross Positives. I wonder, is turnout factored in to the Leader Ratings? If not, I think there is a good case as to why NS is a poorer indicator than GP



    Sir Keir is said to be the more likeable, because his "net like" is three points higher than that of Boris. To me this seems absurd, because more people said they liked Boris (45-36), Sir Keir only wins because he is allocated 50% of those who neither know nor care. Maybe those who neither know nor care are unlikely to vote, and if this is filtered into the numbers, I think it is a different story.

    I am assuming turnout of 70% as a rough guide for when my "Turnout tweak" button is pushed.

    For Boris, 85% of voters have made their mind up about him. I would say a large percentage of the 45 who like him can be thought of as pretty certain to vote for him (I have allowed 10% margin for people who say they like both leaders, but this could be way off the mark) giving Boris a max score of 45 and a min of 40.5. The non voters would be the 15 who don't know and 15 of those who dislike him

    In Sir Keir's case, only 64% of voters have made up their minds about him. It seems that people infer this means 36% of votes are up for grabs. But, as only 70% of people vote, and those without a strong opinion must be less inclined to be voters, only 6% are realistically available to him. So I give him a max vote of 39% (His 36 + half of the undecided's once the turnout tweak button is pushed) and a minimum of 32.4% (his 36% less the 10% who may like both he and Boris)

    I think it's complicated.

    I think for some leaders - like Corbyn - their negatives really matter, and therefore net is a better judge of how he will do than gross. Had I been in the UK, I would have dragged my sorry ass down to the polling station to ensure he wasn't Prime Minister, and who I voted for wouldn't matter. Corbyn's negatives really mattered. (As in, it doesn't matter if 40% of people love you, if the other 60% will go out and vote against you.)

    But in the case of Starmer, I think you're broadly right. People aren't that enthused. That being said... I wouldn't vote against Starmer, either. So while his lack of positives (relative to Boris) is an issue, he will probably benefit from less tactical voting against Labour.
    You're all overanalysing. Net figures are what matters, full stop, balancing out positive and negative opinions. You may refine that a bit by looking at strength of approval both ways. Anything beyond that is highly subjective. All that you can say from a lot of DKs or Neithers is that a lot of people have yet to make up their minds or may not even be aware of the person, so opinion could shift more one way or another if they do.

    Regardless, I am content that at the next general election, the Labour leader is not going to have his face plastered all over or even mentioned on Conservative Party leaflets, the first time that has happened for quite a while. How Starmer compares with the Conservative leader depends on a lot of things, not least who is the Conservative leader. Whether Labour is in contention depends mainly on whether Starmer can convince the public that he has done enough to change the party in his image.
    Why factor in the 30% of people who don't vote?

    Net figures say Sir Keir is rated as more likeable by the public than Boris. That is absurd, and shows why they are wrong
    Isn't Johnson just more polarising on "likeability"? Quite a lot of people think Johnson is "hilarious" and "refreshing". Quite a lot of people think he's an arsehole. You hear both these takes from people who aren't massively political.

    Starmer, on the other hand, is hard to love and also hard to hate. A lot of people either think he's "alright" or "a bit meh".

    Not sure which of those is a better place to be in. But I don't think you should assume, just because Starmer doesn't attract adoring fan-boys, that he's necessarily underwater on likeability - he's just less polarising.

    Ditto Trump/Biden in 2020. Trump's disbelief in his own defeat was partly down to the true fact that, even in normal times, Biden was never going to get Trump's level of adoration from obsessed fans. But their votes aren't worth any more than those of people who thought Biden was somewhat dull but competent.
    The point is that when you have a room full of 100 people, in non Covid times of course, and ask them to answer whether they thought two politicians were

    (a) likeable
    (b)dislikeable or
    (c) they didn't know or care

    if you KNOW that 30 of them wont vote, the last 30 who dislike or don't know are irrelevant.

    So 45/40/15 is better than 36/28/36, because in reality it is 45/70 (65%) - 25/70 (35%) vs 36/64 (56%)- 28/64 (44%)

    So Boris is +30 and Sir Keir is +12

    I think!

    Unless turnout is factored into Leader Ratings, in which I case I have wasted a lot of time working all that out
    I don't agree with the maths as I think you're assuming non-voters come from primarily the ranks of dislike or don't know.

    As I say, Johnson is quite divisive. As with Trump/Biden, quite a lot of people will vote against one despite having negative or only very mild feelings about the other.

    Having said that, you'd rather be divisive and above water (as Johnson is in some polls) than divisive and below (as Trump pretty consistently was).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    edited February 2021
    People from Essex are weirdos/perverts.

    Police urge people not to attend 'dogging' event on Canvey.

    A “DOGGING” event is being planned on Canvey but police have insisted it is not “essential travel” and warned the public not to attend.

    The website “Let’s Go Dogging” has shared that there are plans for a meet up on Canvey this weekend to its 26,000 followers on social media.

    The site claims to organise “dogging” events - the act of watching sexual activity in a public place - in the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa.

    It has not disclosed where the Canvey meet up would take place, but Essex Police have said any such meet up would be against Covid rules and officers would be patrolling the island this weekend.

    Norman Smith, leader of Castle Point Council, said no previous meet ups of this kind had been reported in the borough, and hoped it would be “stamped out”.

    He said: “It’s something I have never heard of as an issue in Castle Point, and during this period of time it is totally against the rules and it’s not something we would want to associate with Castle Point at all.

    “I am hoping that it’s the first time and that we can stop it before it starts.

    “I certainly hope it doesn’t gain momentum in our area, I just think of young children being out and about, it’s not something you would want them to witness.”

    Essex Police have urged anyone considering a social gathering on Canvey to “reconsider”.

    A spokesman said: “At the moment, England is in a national lockdown and only essential travel is permitted, which is limited to travel to and from work if you cannot work from home, to shop for essential items, to care for someone, to attend a medical appointment or to attend education or childcare.


    https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19109815.police-urge-people-not-attend-dogging-event-canvey/
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
    What's the fatality rate for symptomatic covid?
    Pretty small.

    Despite the comments about covid being usually asympomatic, it isn't.
    People conflated pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic together rather too easily (there was once a news story that around 85% of people tested had no symptoms when they tested positive - but most of these did develop symptoms within days afterwards).

    Normally it looks like 20%-30% are asymptomatic, then you get mild and moderate symptoms up to the 95% mark, then about 3-5% are seriously ill to the point of needing hospitalisation to help them stay alive, and about 0.7-0.8% end up dying.
    (All varying with age, of course)

    So the fatality rate for symptomatic covid is around 1%
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    11,233 new cases in Czech Rep. Population is only 10.7 million.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,256

    Just been reminded that Macron's wife is 67. So how much shit has he had at home about not allowing the AZ vaccine for over 65s?

    I don't wish to speculate on the state of their marriage, but could it be telling that Macron is apparently deliberately putting at greater risk, as a purely random example, 67 year olds?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    ydoethur said:

    Millions of high-grade masks used in the NHS may not meet the right safety standards and have been withdrawn.

    The Department of Health told the BBC there are 12 million of these masks either in use or in hospital stores and has told staff to stop using them.

    Distribution of some gloves has also been suspended because they may not meet technical requirements.

    The Department of Health said safety of frontline staff was an absolute priority.

    Its warning concerns a specific brand of FFP3 mask, which are more sophisticated than surgical masks and are worn in intensive care or when certain procedures are carried out that can generate aerosols.

    These are tiny virus particles that can build up in stuffy rooms and have been linked to outbreaks of Covid-19.

    The British Medical Association appealed last month for staff on general wards to be given this type of mask to guard against coronavirus infection.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56167916

    We'll probably get them in schools instead.

    Although I can only conclude whatever lunatic came up with masks on for all people at all times has never taught a class.
    I think that the problem is this. The general consensus is that the Plague spreads between adolescents in a similar manner to adults.

    So, either it is screamingly vital for masks to be worn by all adults in enclosed environments where social distancing cannot be maintained, in which case the evil gags must be fitted to older children packed 30 to a classroom. Or masks are useless in which case we can all get rid of them.

    Everyone seems to have decided that masks are screamingly vital so the poor kids are stuck with them.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,613

    Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    Crikey. Am I reading the final chart correctly? The over-85s have now achieved infection crossover with two younger cohorts??
    Yes. That's what you'd expect to see as the vaccines start to work.

    First the cases fall in the first groups to be vaccinated.
    Then the admissions will be effected.
    Then the deaths.
  • Has Comedy Dave managed to work out why no mainstream media outlet other than CNN picked up that mega scoop on the EU signing their AZN contract before the UK? Its a huge scandal (other than the man can't read).

    Funnily enough, he hasn't tweeted this, yet:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,238
    Andy_JS said:

    11,233 new cases in Czech Rep. Population is only 10.7 million.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

    Yes, I saw that too

    Actually more than the UK, today. They are having a terrible third wave
  • A Trans woman tries to cast light on the SNP's Trans muddle:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snp-s-transphobia-muddle
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    dixiedean said:

    Zero Covid is 2 different things though. In countries where it has never been endemic, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia to a large extent it makes total sense.
    We don't have it. Keep it out. Live as normally as possible otherwise.
    It is an entirely different proposition when cases have been out of control.

    Do you think New Zealand are going to isolate to the extent they are now long term? I doubt it (although insert joke about isolation being the norm there anyway for decades).

    They'll thank their lucky stars (and policy approach to an extent to be fair), have a vaccination programme, and reopen as it becomes manageable (at the cost that there will be some level of COVID in NZ).

    Being draconian in response to it makes sense to avoid being like the UK, US or Europe. But it makes much less sense as those areas emerge from it later this year.
    That's precisely what I think they'll do.
    And I think they'll consider that a pretty good result all things considered.
  • People from Essex are weirdos/perverts.

    Police urge people not to attend 'dogging' event on Canvey.

    A “DOGGING” event is being planned on Canvey but police have insisted it is not “essential travel” and warned the public not to attend.

    The website “Let’s Go Dogging” has shared that there are plans for a meet up on Canvey this weekend to its 26,000 followers on social media.

    The site claims to organise “dogging” events - the act of watching sexual activity in a public place - in the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa.

    It has not disclosed where the Canvey meet up would take place, but Essex Police have said any such meet up would be against Covid rules and officers would be patrolling the island this weekend.

    Norman Smith, leader of Castle Point Council, said no previous meet ups of this kind had been reported in the borough, and hoped it would be “stamped out”.

    He said: “It’s something I have never heard of as an issue in Castle Point, and during this period of time it is totally against the rules and it’s not something we would want to associate with Castle Point at all.

    “I am hoping that it’s the first time and that we can stop it before it starts.

    “I certainly hope it doesn’t gain momentum in our area, I just think of young children being out and about, it’s not something you would want them to witness.”

    Essex Police have urged anyone considering a social gathering on Canvey to “reconsider”.

    A spokesman said: “At the moment, England is in a national lockdown and only essential travel is permitted, which is limited to travel to and from work if you cannot work from home, to shop for essential items, to care for someone, to attend a medical appointment or to attend education or childcare.


    https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19109815.police-urge-people-not-attend-dogging-event-canvey/

    Based on their definition, no actual sexual activity is due to take place....!
  • Selebian said:

    Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    Crumblies (85+) have reeled in the 45-65 group.....

    That must be the vaccine, surely?
    Given that's cases not hospitalisations ...

    And given that crumblies have been disproportionately shielding and not working ...

    ... How were they ever ahead per capita in the first place?
    Far more likely (among those infected) to get clear symptoms and take a test?
    Perhaps but then surely that means the wider community spread is much worse than we know?

    Only other thing I can think is care homes. Crumblies packed 20 to 100 a home with the bug spreading like wildfire in their homes?
  • Article 16 is part and parcel of international law so why not just invoke it until this issue is resolved and all parties including TUV and DUP are happy?

    That's not breaking international law surely?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,604

    Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    Crikey. Am I reading the final chart correctly? The over-85s have now achieved infection crossover with two younger cohorts??
    Yes. That's what you'd expect to see as the vaccines start to work.

    First the cases fall in the first groups to be vaccinated.
    Then the admissions will be effected.
    Then the deaths.
    Indeed – it looks extremely encouraging.

    Thanks.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,167
    edited February 2021
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
    What's the fatality rate for symptomatic covid?
    There are various ways to estimate, and different extents to which symptomatic is symptomatic (e.g. I've known people who've tested positive and been well below par but working from home quite normally).

    But it's surely way below 10%. There have been over 4 million UK cases, most of which will have been symptomatic in some sense, if only mild (there has been some precautionary testing, of course, but presumably also quite a few mild cases with no test, particularly early in the pandemic). There have been 120k deaths. Ignoring deaths of vs deaths with and so on, that's 3% and probably an overestimate at that. Now the death rate is much higher in some groups, and 3% is still bad. But it's not smallpox levels.

    And why focus on symptomatic death rate? It's the same illness, and that's the point in terms of wiping it out. You could have it and not notice, I could catch it and die.

    As others have said, smallpox was probably easier to wipe out - more lethal but less contagious, and if you had it then you wouldn't be sauntering about in ASDA or whatever.
  • Not sure this translates globally.......

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1364265655776800768?s=20

    I once had people reaching for dictionaries all over Europe when I wrote "I won't steal Product Development's thunder by spilling the beans".....
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Zero Covid is 2 different things though. In countries where it has never been endemic, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia to a large extent it makes total sense.
    We don't have it. Keep it out. Live as normally as possible otherwise.
    It is an entirely different proposition when cases have been out of control.

    Do you think New Zealand are going to isolate to the extent they are now long term? I doubt it (although insert joke about isolation being the norm there anyway for decades).

    They'll thank their lucky stars (and policy approach to an extent to be fair), have a vaccination programme, and reopen as it becomes manageable (at the cost that there will be some level of COVID in NZ).

    Being draconian in response to it makes sense to avoid being like the UK, US or Europe. But it makes much less sense as those areas emerge from it later this year.
    That's precisely what I think they'll do.
    And I think they'll consider that a pretty good result all things considered.
    Sorry - which do you think they'll do... continue to be draconian or vaccinate/relax at the expense of a manageable level of illness?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
    What's the fatality rate for symptomatic covid?
    There are various ways to estimate, and different extents to which symptomatic is symptomatic (e.g. I've known people who've tested positive and been well below par but working from home quite normally).

    But it's surely way below 10%. There have been over 4 million UK cases, most of which will have been symptomatic in some sense, if only mild (there has been some precautionary testing, of course, but presumably also quite a few mild cases with no test, particularly early in the pandemic). There have been 120k deaths. Ignoring deaths of vs deaths with and so on, that's 3% and probably an overestimate at that. Now the death rate is much higher in some groups, and 3% is still bad. But it's not smallpox levels.

    And why focus on symptomatic death rate? It's the same illness, and that's the point in terms of wiping it out. You could have it and not notice, I could catch it and die.

    As others have said, smallpox was probably easier to wipe out - more lethal but less contagious, and if you had it then you wouldn't be sauntering about in ASDA or whatever.
    Fair enough, I give you fatality rates.

    I am not at all convinced you are right about how infectious smallpox was, or how it was spread, but ultimately it isn’t that important. The point is that while it was wiped out, it was not easy and it took a long time.

    If we want to reopen in the short term therefore, we should be aiming for low incidence, not no incidence.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    People from Essex are weirdos/perverts.

    Police urge people not to attend 'dogging' event on Canvey.

    A “DOGGING” event is being planned on Canvey but police have insisted it is not “essential travel” and warned the public not to attend.

    The website “Let’s Go Dogging” has shared that there are plans for a meet up on Canvey this weekend to its 26,000 followers on social media.

    The site claims to organise “dogging” events - the act of watching sexual activity in a public place - in the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa.

    It has not disclosed where the Canvey meet up would take place, but Essex Police have said any such meet up would be against Covid rules and officers would be patrolling the island this weekend.

    Norman Smith, leader of Castle Point Council, said no previous meet ups of this kind had been reported in the borough, and hoped it would be “stamped out”.

    He said: “It’s something I have never heard of as an issue in Castle Point, and during this period of time it is totally against the rules and it’s not something we would want to associate with Castle Point at all.

    “I am hoping that it’s the first time and that we can stop it before it starts.

    “I certainly hope it doesn’t gain momentum in our area, I just think of young children being out and about, it’s not something you would want them to witness.”

    Essex Police have urged anyone considering a social gathering on Canvey to “reconsider”.

    A spokesman said: “At the moment, England is in a national lockdown and only essential travel is permitted, which is limited to travel to and from work if you cannot work from home, to shop for essential items, to care for someone, to attend a medical appointment or to attend education or childcare.


    https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19109815.police-urge-people-not-attend-dogging-event-canvey/

    Has binocular sales gone up in the area?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    ydoethur said:

    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.

    If the vaccines turn out to be really good at suppressing transmission, and the virus doesn't mutate too frequently for the vaccine manufacturers to keep up, then it may be possible, eventually, to go for a 'zero Covid' state. But it has to be worldwide, or virtually worldwide. It's absolutely bonkers to think that an individual country - especially one like Scotland which isn't an island, and which has large numbers of international connections - can have a 'zero Covid' policy. Even countries like New Zealand have only bought themselves temporary near-zero status. As soon as they eventually open up, they'll no longer be zero-Covid, but they'll be hoping that by then the vaccine programmes will have been effective enough for the disease not to be too damaging.

    Presumably Nicola Sturgeon realises all this; she's not daft, after all. So she must be playing politics as usual.
    It's not really possible even worldwide. The virus is sitting there in bats, or as we have seen in Denmark in mink, ready to cross back over again.
  • People from Essex are weirdos/perverts.

    Police urge people not to attend 'dogging' event on Canvey.

    A “DOGGING” event is being planned on Canvey but police have insisted it is not “essential travel” and warned the public not to attend.

    The website “Let’s Go Dogging” has shared that there are plans for a meet up on Canvey this weekend to its 26,000 followers on social media.

    The site claims to organise “dogging” events - the act of watching sexual activity in a public place - in the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa.

    It has not disclosed where the Canvey meet up would take place, but Essex Police have said any such meet up would be against Covid rules and officers would be patrolling the island this weekend.

    Norman Smith, leader of Castle Point Council, said no previous meet ups of this kind had been reported in the borough, and hoped it would be “stamped out”.

    He said: “It’s something I have never heard of as an issue in Castle Point, and during this period of time it is totally against the rules and it’s not something we would want to associate with Castle Point at all.

    “I am hoping that it’s the first time and that we can stop it before it starts.

    “I certainly hope it doesn’t gain momentum in our area, I just think of young children being out and about, it’s not something you would want them to witness.”

    Essex Police have urged anyone considering a social gathering on Canvey to “reconsider”.

    A spokesman said: “At the moment, England is in a national lockdown and only essential travel is permitted, which is limited to travel to and from work if you cannot work from home, to shop for essential items, to care for someone, to attend a medical appointment or to attend education or childcare.


    https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19109815.police-urge-people-not-attend-dogging-event-canvey/

    Based on their definition, no actual sexual activity is due to take place....!
    Hence the weirdos.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Floater said:
    Well in these slightly dystopian times its good to see some have retained a sense of humour. Well done UN!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,604

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
    What's the fatality rate for symptomatic covid?
    There are various ways to estimate, and different extents to which symptomatic is symptomatic (e.g. I've known people who've tested positive and been well below par but working from home quite normally).

    But it's surely way below 10%. There have been over 4 million UK cases, most of which will have been symptomatic in some sense, if only mild (there has been some precautionary testing, of course, but presumably also quite a few mild cases with no test, particularly early in the pandemic). There have been 120k deaths. Ignoring deaths of vs deaths with and so on, that's 3% and probably an overestimate at that. Now the death rate is much higher in some groups, and 3% is still bad. But it's not smallpox levels.

    And why focus on symptomatic death rate? It's the same illness, and that's the point in terms of wiping it out. You could have it and not notice, I could catch it and die.

    As others have said, smallpox was probably easier to wipe out - more lethal but less contagious, and if you had it then you wouldn't be sauntering about in ASDA or whatever.
    Yes, it's clear that @ydoethur is completely wrong about this.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    ydoethur said:

    Millions of high-grade masks used in the NHS may not meet the right safety standards and have been withdrawn.

    The Department of Health told the BBC there are 12 million of these masks either in use or in hospital stores and has told staff to stop using them.

    Distribution of some gloves has also been suspended because they may not meet technical requirements.

    The Department of Health said safety of frontline staff was an absolute priority.

    Its warning concerns a specific brand of FFP3 mask, which are more sophisticated than surgical masks and are worn in intensive care or when certain procedures are carried out that can generate aerosols.

    These are tiny virus particles that can build up in stuffy rooms and have been linked to outbreaks of Covid-19.

    The British Medical Association appealed last month for staff on general wards to be given this type of mask to guard against coronavirus infection.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56167916

    We'll probably get them in schools instead.

    Although I can only conclude whatever lunatic came up with masks on for all people at all times has never taught a class.
    I think that the problem is this. The general consensus is that the Plague spreads between adolescents in a similar manner to adults.

    So, either it is screamingly vital for masks to be worn by all adults in enclosed environments where social distancing cannot be maintained, in which case the evil gags must be fitted to older children packed 30 to a classroom. Or masks are useless in which case we can all get rid of them.

    Everyone seems to have decided that masks are screamingly vital so the poor kids are stuck with them.
    There is a third option. That masks, worn for brief periods where you are in fleeting contact with possible carriers, cut transmission by providing a barrier to aerosols.

    But that if worn for a long time, first of all do not protect against prolonged transmission and secondly can become impregnated with the virus, which then gets spread over hands, tables, chairs, anywhere they drop their masks or put them down, which they will, and therefore can cause considerably more infection.

    That is the option I expect to be taken in schools. Plus it makes hearing what children say or indeed controlling a class totally fucking impossible.

    Even by the standards of the drug addled morons of the DfE, who let us not forget decided to make legal threats to keep schools open only to have close them, this is a bad one. It is a classic counterproductive example of Politcians’ Logic.

    Incidentally schools going back may well cause a huge spike in recorded cases in the first two weeks simply because of the huge amounts of tests secondaries are having to do. Not that they are much use - less than 0.15% of tests turned up a positive result under lockdown, according to reports, probably because they were not being used correctly.

    And finally I was right last night and Johnson misled Parliament, presumably deliberately to get a good headline in the Wail. Secondaries are in effect mostly going back on the fifteenth.
  • NHS app to be converted for vaccine passports

    The NHS app will be converted into a digital Covid-19 certificate allowing people to use their phone to prove that they have been vaccinated or tested negative.

    No 10 is considering allowing businesses to demand to see the app to ensure that staff or customers are at a much lower risking of being infectious.

    Michael Gove will lead a review into the “deep and complex” issues around vaccine passports, which the government is considering again after previously branding them discriminatory.

    It is understood that the government wants to give people the option of showing either vaccination status or test results to ensure that the scheme not does penalise those who cannot receive the vaccine for health reasons.

    Health chiefs are looking at using the existing NHS app to offer an easy way for people to show that they have been vaccinated or recently tested. While the NHS contact tracing app is considered unsuitable because its design favours privacy, officials believe that the standard NHS appointment booking app would be relatively straightforward to use.

    The app already allows people to see their medical records — including Covid-19 vaccinations — and test results are shared with the GP databases it uses, making it feasible to upload and access them quickly.

    Health bosses say it is a “mix of ethical and clinical questions” that the review needs to answer, rather than technical ones. This could include whether people could input and verify the results of a lateral flow test carried out at home.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-app-to-be-converted-for-vaccine-passports-r0xx0mflp
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    At least it's not "let's go raw dogging" otherwise we'd probably get a serious outbreak.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,238
    Leon said:
    I remember when Neil Ferguson gave that Channel 4 interview and said the UK would see potentially 400,000 dead, IF we did not attempt to control it (and of course he was not anticipating vaccines)


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-fears-400000-brits-could-21500019


    He was roundly ridiculed on here, by many.

    At the moment Britain is expected to see 150,000 dead by June 1, 2021, and that's WITH lockdowns and WITH vaccines

    Neil Ferguson was right.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
    What's the fatality rate for symptomatic covid?
    There are various ways to estimate, and different extents to which symptomatic is symptomatic (e.g. I've known people who've tested positive and been well below par but working from home quite normally).

    But it's surely way below 10%. There have been over 4 million UK cases, most of which will have been symptomatic in some sense, if only mild (there has been some precautionary testing, of course, but presumably also quite a few mild cases with no test, particularly early in the pandemic). There have been 120k deaths. Ignoring deaths of vs deaths with and so on, that's 3% and probably an overestimate at that. Now the death rate is much higher in some groups, and 3% is still bad. But it's not smallpox levels.

    And why focus on symptomatic death rate? It's the same illness, and that's the point in terms of wiping it out. You could have it and not notice, I could catch it and die.

    As others have said, smallpox was probably easier to wipe out - more lethal but less contagious, and if you had it then you wouldn't be sauntering about in ASDA or whatever.
    Fair enough, I give you fatality rates.

    I am not at all convinced you are right about how infectious smallpox was, or how it was spread, but ultimately it isn’t that important. The point is that while it was wiped out, it was not easy and it took a long time.

    If we want to reopen in the short term therefore, we should be aiming for low incidence, not no incidence.
    I thought your original argument was, by analogy with smallpox, it could potentially be eradicated in 15 years?

    I think that's unrealistic even if we decided to target it very strongly. Smallpox took decades after a good vaccination was reasonably widespread (actually, there was some form of rudimentary vaccination in Asia in the 1500s but it wasn't great). And it was a fair bit easier due to more deadly/less contagious/rarely unnoticed point.

    I hope I'm wrong but, if I am, it'll be vaccine and other technology rather than because of similarities with smallpox.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    At least it's not "let's go raw dogging" otherwise we'd probably get a serious outbreak.

    Raw dogging? Don’t tell @Dura_Ace
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Leon said:

    Leon said:
    I remember when Neil Ferguson gave that Channel 4 interview and said the UK would see potentially 400,000 dead, IF we did not attempt to control it (and of course he was not anticipating vaccines)


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-fears-400000-brits-could-21500019


    He was roundly ridiculed on here, by many.

    At the moment Britain is expected to see 150,000 dead by June 1, 2021, and that's WITH lockdowns and WITH vaccines

    Neil Ferguson was right.
    He's only even close to being right because of the horrific increase in death brought about by the Kent variant which has resulted in nearly half of all our deaths in the last 2-3months. It's not impossible that he forecast more infectious variants developing but I don't recall that at the time. Even then we are probably only going to get 1/3 of what he forecast which isn't that close.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,238
    Met a Labour voting friend today for a pleasant stroll in the park. Amongst the crocuses and daffodils! And in the sun!

    He ranted for a bit about Boris killing half of Britain, then I asked him about Starmer.

    "Useless. Boring" was his verdict, and my friend is on the Blairite wing (he hated Corbyn)

    Starmer has a problem if he is losing these people
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
    What's the fatality rate for symptomatic covid?
    There are various ways to estimate, and different extents to which symptomatic is symptomatic (e.g. I've known people who've tested positive and been well below par but working from home quite normally).

    But it's surely way below 10%. There have been over 4 million UK cases, most of which will have been symptomatic in some sense, if only mild (there has been some precautionary testing, of course, but presumably also quite a few mild cases with no test, particularly early in the pandemic). There have been 120k deaths. Ignoring deaths of vs deaths with and so on, that's 3% and probably an overestimate at that. Now the death rate is much higher in some groups, and 3% is still bad. But it's not smallpox levels.

    And why focus on symptomatic death rate? It's the same illness, and that's the point in terms of wiping it out. You could have it and not notice, I could catch it and die.

    As others have said, smallpox was probably easier to wipe out - more lethal but less contagious, and if you had it then you wouldn't be sauntering about in ASDA or whatever.
    Yes, it's clear that @ydoethur is completely wrong about this.
    On checking, I find I was completely wrong on fatality rates for smallpox and they were around 30%, so clearly much more lethal than Covid.

    Equally, however, you contracted it in exactly the same way Covid did - by being within a short range of an infected person and inhaling droplets from their mouth, or by touching contaminated objects.

    The key difference was that it spread much more readily when someone was infected, but before symptoms developed people weren’t infectious. Therefore, it was much less likely that somebody would unknowingly become infected.

    More here:

    https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/about/index.html
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Leon said:

    Met a Labour voting friend today for a pleasant stroll in the park. Amongst the crocuses and daffodils! And in the sun!

    He ranted for a bit about Boris killing half of Britain, then I asked him about Starmer.

    "Useless. Boring" was his verdict, and my friend is on the Blairite wing (he hated Corbyn)

    Starmer has a problem if he is losing these people
    Don't blame me, I voted for Nandy
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    edited February 2021

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Wave cheerio to your tourist industry then.....
    Isn't the Scottish tourist industry, like all other restricted and outright shuttered businesses in the UK, supported principally by furlough and other schemes administered by the Treasury?

    Now, I wonder what happens if the pandemic is effectively declared over in England by June, but Scotland decides to seal its borders whilst it tries to achieve or to maintain Covid-free status - specifically, if the Treasury then pulls the plug?

    I don't believe that Scotland is genuinely going to try to achieve elimination. The real strategy is probably to blame Westminster for all Covid deaths in Scotland for the rest of time, because it refused to adopt that policy.
    Once we are through the worst of the global pandemic and can take proper stock, looking to eliminate the virus is probably a worthwhile long term aim, as with smallpox.

    As a short term aim, however, it does seem a bit ambitious. I hope they succeed, of course, but it will depend on the balance of priorities for Scotland.

    Given that the top priority for the SNP is naturally independence, Ms Sturgeon must believe that the zero Covid strategy gives that the best chance.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
    It took 200 years of sustained effort to get rid of smallpox. In a much smaller population.

    But a rigorous vaccination programme brought it under tight control to the extent that within a hundred years despite setbacks and resistance to vaccines it was a much less serious problem, and within 20 years of a serious effort being made to get rid of it it had pretty well gone.

    I think 15 years to eliminate Covid, if we decide we need to, isn't unrealistic.
    Wasn't smallpox a very different proposition, though, due to being markedly less contagious but more lethal?
    I would have said from what I know of it that it was more infectious but slightly less lethal. From memory, over 90% of people who contracted smallpox survived it, but it was very easy to get. Breathing the same air as an infected person was almost invariably enough.

    The killer punch with this disease is that people with no symptoms can spread it. That didn't happen with smallpox. If you had it, you knew about it.

    Of course, that makes comparing fatality rates rather difficult.
    I don't quite understand. The fatality rate from COVID is miles below 10%, isn't it?

    And smallpox was quite a bit less transmissible - it essentially needed skin on skin (that's not strictly right as you could be sneezed on, but it was certainly less contagious than COVID).

    So I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
    What's the fatality rate for symptomatic covid?
    There are various ways to estimate, and different extents to which symptomatic is symptomatic (e.g. I've known people who've tested positive and been well below par but working from home quite normally).

    But it's surely way below 10%. There have been over 4 million UK cases, most of which will have been symptomatic in some sense, if only mild (there has been some precautionary testing, of course, but presumably also quite a few mild cases with no test, particularly early in the pandemic). There have been 120k deaths. Ignoring deaths of vs deaths with and so on, that's 3% and probably an overestimate at that. Now the death rate is much higher in some groups, and 3% is still bad. But it's not smallpox levels.

    And why focus on symptomatic death rate? It's the same illness, and that's the point in terms of wiping it out. You could have it and not notice, I could catch it and die.

    As others have said, smallpox was probably easier to wipe out - more lethal but less contagious, and if you had it then you wouldn't be sauntering about in ASDA or whatever.
    Fair enough, I give you fatality rates.

    I am not at all convinced you are right about how infectious smallpox was, or how it was spread, but ultimately it isn’t that important. The point is that while it was wiped out, it was not easy and it took a long time.

    If we want to reopen in the short term therefore, we should be aiming for low incidence, not no incidence.
    I thought your original argument was, by analogy with smallpox, it could potentially be eradicated in 15 years?

    I think that's unrealistic even if we decided to target it very strongly. Smallpox took decades after a good vaccination was reasonably widespread (actually, there was some form of rudimentary vaccination in Asia in the 1500s but it wasn't great). And it was a fair bit easier due to more deadly/less contagious/rarely unnoticed point.

    I hope I'm wrong but, if I am, it'll be vaccine and other technology rather than because of similarities with smallpox.
    No. My argument was it could theoretically be eradicated over a long time frame with a huge effort, but that it’s mad to assume that we can achieve that in time for what’s needed, which is an opening up this summer.

    Apologies if that was unclear. I am rather tired and I may easily not have expressed myself as I intended.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited February 2021
    Between Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer, 47% say they think Boris Johnson would be the better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom at this moment, an increase of 4% from last week. 33% think Keir Starmer would be the better Prime Minister. Boris Johnson’s 14% lead is 3% higher than last week....

    Finally, Boris Johnson’s leads over Keir Starmer with respect to more specific areas have increased since last week. He leads on being most suited to build a strong economy (46% compared to Starmer’s 29%), work with foreign leaders (42% to 35%), know how to get things done (43% to 30%), stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom (47% to 29%), and, perhaps most importantly at this time, tackle the coronavirus pandemic (45% to 28%).

    Meanwhile, respondents continue to select Starmer over Johnson when it comes to being in good physical and mental health (42% to Johnson’s 30%). Keir Starmer holds slim leads as someone who “cares about people like me” (35% to 32%) and “represents change” (37% to 35%), but these leads have decreased in recent weeks.

    A significant number of respondents (41%) continue to respond ‘don’t know’ when asked to select which of the party leaders best embodies the trait of telling the truth.



    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/gb-voting-intention-22-february-2021/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,238
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:
    I remember when Neil Ferguson gave that Channel 4 interview and said the UK would see potentially 400,000 dead, IF we did not attempt to control it (and of course he was not anticipating vaccines)


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-fears-400000-brits-could-21500019


    He was roundly ridiculed on here, by many.

    At the moment Britain is expected to see 150,000 dead by June 1, 2021, and that's WITH lockdowns and WITH vaccines

    Neil Ferguson was right.
    He's only even close to being right because of the horrific increase in death brought about by the Kent variant which has resulted in nearly half of all our deaths in the last 2-3months. It's not impossible that he forecast more infectious variants developing but I don't recall that at the time. Even then we are probably only going to get 1/3 of what he forecast which isn't that close.
    lol. He said 400,000 with no controls (and, like everyone else, he did not expect vaccines so quick). We're still gonna see 150,000 dead with total lockdowns and superb vaccines

    Given that he is an expert in this field, I imagine he did expect mutations, because, as we have now all learned, painfully, they happen all the time with viruses, eg flu

    You clearly have some animus against the guy, which upsets you, but I'm afraid he was right, on this question. He was much mocked, but he has been vindicated.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Leon said:

    Leon said:
    I remember when Neil Ferguson gave that Channel 4 interview and said the UK would see potentially 400,000 dead, IF we did not attempt to control it (and of course he was not anticipating vaccines)


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-fears-400000-brits-could-21500019


    He was roundly ridiculed on here, by many.

    At the moment Britain is expected to see 150,000 dead by June 1, 2021, and that's WITH lockdowns and WITH vaccines

    Neil Ferguson was right.
    He was indeed right. But he has been significantly more chipper lately. Hopefully he's as right now as he was then.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-uk-neil-ferguson-lockdown-b1801354.html
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722

    Leon said:

    Met a Labour voting friend today for a pleasant stroll in the park. Amongst the crocuses and daffodils! And in the sun!

    He ranted for a bit about Boris killing half of Britain, then I asked him about Starmer.

    "Useless. Boring" was his verdict, and my friend is on the Blairite wing (he hated Corbyn)

    Starmer has a problem if he is losing these people
    Don't blame me, I voted for Nandy
    Me too
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:
    I remember when Neil Ferguson gave that Channel 4 interview and said the UK would see potentially 400,000 dead, IF we did not attempt to control it (and of course he was not anticipating vaccines)


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-fears-400000-brits-could-21500019


    He was roundly ridiculed on here, by many.

    At the moment Britain is expected to see 150,000 dead by June 1, 2021, and that's WITH lockdowns and WITH vaccines

    Neil Ferguson was right.
    He's only even close to being right because of the horrific increase in death brought about by the Kent variant which has resulted in nearly half of all our deaths in the last 2-3months. It's not impossible that he forecast more infectious variants developing but I don't recall that at the time. Even then we are probably only going to get 1/3 of what he forecast which isn't that close.
    And under a third of us (compared to the attack rate estimated for the 500,000 with no mitigation) have been infected.

    The projection was "what would happen if we just let it rip?"

    We didn't.

    He was pretty much spot on, if a little overoptimistic. If we had let it infect as many is it liked, we would certainly have had a death toll similar or larger to that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,238
    edited February 2021

    Leon said:

    Met a Labour voting friend today for a pleasant stroll in the park. Amongst the crocuses and daffodils! And in the sun!

    He ranted for a bit about Boris killing half of Britain, then I asked him about Starmer.

    "Useless. Boring" was his verdict, and my friend is on the Blairite wing (he hated Corbyn)

    Starmer has a problem if he is losing these people
    Don't blame me, I voted for Nandy
    Nandy is, arguably, even more boring. And painfully, painfully Woke.

    Somewhere deep in the Labour party there is a woman who will be their next leader, and the next Labour PM. I haven't seen her yet, personally
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    NHS app to be converted for vaccine passports

    The NHS app will be converted into a digital Covid-19 certificate allowing people to use their phone to prove that they have been vaccinated or tested negative.

    No 10 is considering allowing businesses to demand to see the app to ensure that staff or customers are at a much lower risking of being infectious.

    Michael Gove will lead a review into the “deep and complex” issues around vaccine passports, which the government is considering again after previously branding them discriminatory.

    It is understood that the government wants to give people the option of showing either vaccination status or test results to ensure that the scheme not does penalise those who cannot receive the vaccine for health reasons.

    Health chiefs are looking at using the existing NHS app to offer an easy way for people to show that they have been vaccinated or recently tested. While the NHS contact tracing app is considered unsuitable because its design favours privacy, officials believe that the standard NHS appointment booking app would be relatively straightforward to use.

    The app already allows people to see their medical records — including Covid-19 vaccinations — and test results are shared with the GP databases it uses, making it feasible to upload and access them quickly.

    Health bosses say it is a “mix of ethical and clinical questions” that the review needs to answer, rather than technical ones. This could include whether people could input and verify the results of a lateral flow test carried out at home.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-app-to-be-converted-for-vaccine-passports-r0xx0mflp

    And if you’ve been vaccinated abroad, or are non-resident, or have an old phone with no data plan?

    Do we really have to go through this app crap all over again?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911

    Leon said:

    OllyT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    After a simply gloriously sunny day yesterday, rain and wind here today. A reminder that spring weather is unreliable and often far too cold to be outside for any prolonged period, especially in the evening, and in most of the country.

    Very few beer gardens are going to open on the earliest possible date because it is hard to do so profitably during a month when in large parts of the country the weather is often poor and unreliable, which makes planning and ordering stock difficult. Remember also that if you have a tent with sides in the garden it cannot be used as it is classed as "inside space". If it open at the sides then who is going to want to sit in there in the evening open to the elements in April in many parts of the country?

    What would be more useful is allowing takeaway alcohol sales for, gasp, pubs which have been prohibited from doing so, even though off licences and supermarkets have been allowed to.

    Also important in the general rejoicing is to know what is to happen to the support offered to hospitality because currently it is to stop well before venues are allowed to open properly.

    More than a week's notice is needed for opening. Breweries have already said that they will need 2-3 weeks notice to start operations so don't be surprised to find many places not opening until the end of May/ early June. From mid-February until then is a way to go without income and with support significantly less than fixed costs.

    But at least there is a plan and the recognition that zero-Covid is unachievable is a welcome dose of realism.

    Very few restaurants, if any, will find it viable to open up to serve people outside in April in the UK. It's virtually pointless, we are not in the South of France or the Algarve (unfortunately)
    Wrong. Plenty down here will open.
    Yes. A few patio heaters, a dry mild evening, bingo
    Sling a few cheap blankets about the place and they'll be packed in April if the weather is alright. Give people a hot water bottle - the punters will see it as a fun novelty. Pensioners may not bother, and fair enough, but you'll be struggling to get a table anywhere decent.
    All sounds fine but remind me again which central London restaurants have sufficient outdoor space to be make opening in April viable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:
    I remember when Neil Ferguson gave that Channel 4 interview and said the UK would see potentially 400,000 dead, IF we did not attempt to control it (and of course he was not anticipating vaccines)


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-fears-400000-brits-could-21500019


    He was roundly ridiculed on here, by many.

    At the moment Britain is expected to see 150,000 dead by June 1, 2021, and that's WITH lockdowns and WITH vaccines

    Neil Ferguson was right.
    He's only even close to being right because of the horrific increase in death brought about by the Kent variant which has resulted in nearly half of all our deaths in the last 2-3months. It's not impossible that he forecast more infectious variants developing but I don't recall that at the time. Even then we are probably only going to get 1/3 of what he forecast which isn't that close.
    lol. He said 400,000 with no controls (and, like everyone else, he did not expect vaccines so quick). We're still gonna see 150,000 dead with total lockdowns and superb vaccines

    Given that he is an expert in this field, I imagine he did expect mutations, because, as we have now all learned, painfully, they happen all the time with viruses, eg flu

    You clearly have some animus against the guy, which upsets you, but I'm afraid he was right, on this question. He was much mocked, but he has been vindicated.
    I have no animus against him at all. I thought that his original model was simplistic and frankly not much short of meaningless because it seemed to assume we were going to carry on like normal and just die. That was never a realistic assumption although it was a fair enough warning that action was urgently required. If he brought home to the government that we needed to act, lock down and invest serious money in vaccines he did us a great service but that doesn't make him right.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279

    NHS app to be converted for vaccine passports

    The NHS app will be converted into a digital Covid-19 certificate allowing people to use their phone to prove that they have been vaccinated or tested negative.

    No 10 is considering allowing businesses to demand to see the app to ensure that staff or customers are at a much lower risking of being infectious.

    Michael Gove will lead a review into the “deep and complex” issues around vaccine passports, which the government is considering again after previously branding them discriminatory.

    It is understood that the government wants to give people the option of showing either vaccination status or test results to ensure that the scheme not does penalise those who cannot receive the vaccine for health reasons.

    Health chiefs are looking at using the existing NHS app to offer an easy way for people to show that they have been vaccinated or recently tested. While the NHS contact tracing app is considered unsuitable because its design favours privacy, officials believe that the standard NHS appointment booking app would be relatively straightforward to use.

    The app already allows people to see their medical records — including Covid-19 vaccinations — and test results are shared with the GP databases it uses, making it feasible to upload and access them quickly.

    Health bosses say it is a “mix of ethical and clinical questions” that the review needs to answer, rather than technical ones. This could include whether people could input and verify the results of a lateral flow test carried out at home.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-app-to-be-converted-for-vaccine-passports-r0xx0mflp

    So its FU to the 25% who dont have smartphones. What a surprise.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Met a Labour voting friend today for a pleasant stroll in the park. Amongst the crocuses and daffodils! And in the sun!

    He ranted for a bit about Boris killing half of Britain, then I asked him about Starmer.

    "Useless. Boring" was his verdict, and my friend is on the Blairite wing (he hated Corbyn)

    Starmer has a problem if he is losing these people
    Don't blame me, I voted for Nandy
    Nandy is, arguably, even more boring. And painfully, painfully Woke.

    Somewhere deep in the Labour party there is a woman who will be their next leader, and the next Labour PM. I haven't seen her yet, personally
    Nah. I met both Nandy and Starmer during the leadership contest and Nandy has much more natural charm and charisma and she understood the concerns of red wall voters much more than Keir. That's why I voted for her.

    She also went to Newcastle University so she's got great taste.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,238
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:
    I remember when Neil Ferguson gave that Channel 4 interview and said the UK would see potentially 400,000 dead, IF we did not attempt to control it (and of course he was not anticipating vaccines)


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-fears-400000-brits-could-21500019


    He was roundly ridiculed on here, by many.

    At the moment Britain is expected to see 150,000 dead by June 1, 2021, and that's WITH lockdowns and WITH vaccines

    Neil Ferguson was right.
    He's only even close to being right because of the horrific increase in death brought about by the Kent variant which has resulted in nearly half of all our deaths in the last 2-3months. It's not impossible that he forecast more infectious variants developing but I don't recall that at the time. Even then we are probably only going to get 1/3 of what he forecast which isn't that close.
    lol. He said 400,000 with no controls (and, like everyone else, he did not expect vaccines so quick). We're still gonna see 150,000 dead with total lockdowns and superb vaccines

    Given that he is an expert in this field, I imagine he did expect mutations, because, as we have now all learned, painfully, they happen all the time with viruses, eg flu

    You clearly have some animus against the guy, which upsets you, but I'm afraid he was right, on this question. He was much mocked, but he has been vindicated.
    I have no animus against him at all. I thought that his original model was simplistic and frankly not much short of meaningless because it seemed to assume we were going to carry on like normal and just die. That was never a realistic assumption although it was a fair enough warning that action was urgently required. If he brought home to the government that we needed to act, lock down and invest serious money in vaccines he did us a great service but that doesn't make him right.
    Not sure we have an argument.

    The theatre WAS burning. Someone HAD to calmly shout "Fire". It was him. And thank God he did it, because otherwise it could have been a whole lot worse.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,604
    Andy_JS said:

    NHS app to be converted for vaccine passports

    The NHS app will be converted into a digital Covid-19 certificate allowing people to use their phone to prove that they have been vaccinated or tested negative.

    No 10 is considering allowing businesses to demand to see the app to ensure that staff or customers are at a much lower risking of being infectious.

    Michael Gove will lead a review into the “deep and complex” issues around vaccine passports, which the government is considering again after previously branding them discriminatory.

    It is understood that the government wants to give people the option of showing either vaccination status or test results to ensure that the scheme not does penalise those who cannot receive the vaccine for health reasons.

    Health chiefs are looking at using the existing NHS app to offer an easy way for people to show that they have been vaccinated or recently tested. While the NHS contact tracing app is considered unsuitable because its design favours privacy, officials believe that the standard NHS appointment booking app would be relatively straightforward to use.

    The app already allows people to see their medical records — including Covid-19 vaccinations — and test results are shared with the GP databases it uses, making it feasible to upload and access them quickly.

    Health bosses say it is a “mix of ethical and clinical questions” that the review needs to answer, rather than technical ones. This could include whether people could input and verify the results of a lateral flow test carried out at home.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-app-to-be-converted-for-vaccine-passports-r0xx0mflp

    So its FU to the 25% who dont have smartphones. What a surprise.
    You can pick up a basic smartphone for a tenner these days.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,729

    isam said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    @Philip_Thompson What do you reckon?

    Trying to unpack my thoughts on the conundrum of Net Satisfaction vs Gross Positives. I wonder, is turnout factored in to the Leader Ratings? If not, I think there is a good case as to why NS is a poorer indicator than GP



    Sir Keir is said to be the more likeable, because his "net like" is three points higher than that of Boris. To me this seems absurd, because more people said they liked Boris (45-36), Sir Keir only wins because he is allocated 50% of those who neither know nor care. Maybe those who neither know nor care are unlikely to vote, and if this is filtered into the numbers, I think it is a different story.

    I am assuming turnout of 70% as a rough guide for when my "Turnout tweak" button is pushed.

    For Boris, 85% of voters have made their mind up about him. I would say a large percentage of the 45 who like him can be thought of as pretty certain to vote for him (I have allowed 10% margin for people who say they like both leaders, but this could be way off the mark) giving Boris a max score of 45 and a min of 40.5. The non voters would be the 15 who don't know and 15 of those who dislike him

    In Sir Keir's case, only 64% of voters have made up their minds about him. It seems that people infer this means 36% of votes are up for grabs. But, as only 70% of people vote, and those without a strong opinion must be less inclined to be voters, only 6% are realistically available to him. So I give him a max vote of 39% (His 36 + half of the undecided's once the turnout tweak button is pushed) and a minimum of 32.4% (his 36% less the 10% who may like both he and Boris)

    I think it's complicated.

    I think for some leaders - like Corbyn - their negatives really matter, and therefore net is a better judge of how he will do than gross. Had I been in the UK, I would have dragged my sorry ass down to the polling station to ensure he wasn't Prime Minister, and who I voted for wouldn't matter. Corbyn's negatives really mattered. (As in, it doesn't matter if 40% of people love you, if the other 60% will go out and vote against you.)

    But in the case of Starmer, I think you're broadly right. People aren't that enthused. That being said... I wouldn't vote against Starmer, either. So while his lack of positives (relative to Boris) is an issue, he will probably benefit from less tactical voting against Labour.
    You're all overanalysing. Net figures are what matters, full stop, balancing out positive and negative opinions. You may refine that a bit by looking at strength of approval both ways. Anything beyond that is highly subjective. All that you can say from a lot of DKs or Neithers is that a lot of people have yet to make up their minds or may not even be aware of the person, so opinion could shift more one way or another if they do.

    Regardless, I am content that at the next general election, the Labour leader is not going to have his face plastered all over or even mentioned on Conservative Party leaflets, the first time that has happened for quite a while. How Starmer compares with the Conservative leader depends on a lot of things, not least who is the Conservative leader. Whether Labour is in contention depends mainly on whether Starmer can convince the public that he has done enough to change the party in his image.
    Why factor in the 30% of people who don't vote?

    Net figures say Sir Keir is rated as more likeable by the public than Boris. That is absurd, and shows why they are wrong
    Isn't Johnson just more polarising on "likeability"? Quite a lot of people think Johnson is "hilarious" and "refreshing". Quite a lot of people think he's an arsehole. You hear both these takes from people who aren't massively political.

    Starmer, on the other hand, is hard to love and also hard to hate. A lot of people either think he's "alright" or "a bit meh".

    Not sure which of those is a better place to be in. But I don't think you should assume, just because Starmer doesn't attract adoring fan-boys, that he's necessarily underwater on likeability - he's just less polarising.

    Ditto Trump/Biden in 2020. Trump's disbelief in his own defeat was partly down to the true fact that, even in normal times, Biden was never going to get Trump's level of adoration from obsessed fans. But their votes aren't worth any more than those of people who thought Biden was somewhat dull but competent.
    The point is that when you have a room full of 100 people, in non Covid times of course, and ask them to answer whether they thought two politicians were

    (a) likeable
    (b)dislikeable or
    (c) they didn't know or care

    if you KNOW that 30 of them wont vote, the last 30 who dislike or don't know are irrelevant.

    So 45/40/15 is better than 36/28/36, because in reality it is 45/70 (65%) - 25/70 (35%) vs 36/64 (56%)- 28/64 (44%)

    So Boris is +30 and Sir Keir is +12

    I think!

    Unless turnout is factored into Leader Ratings, in which I case I have wasted a lot of time working all that out
    I don't agree with the maths as I think you're assuming non-voters come from primarily the ranks of dislike or don't know.

    As I say, Johnson is quite divisive. As with Trump/Biden, quite a lot of people will vote against one despite having negative or only very mild feelings about the other.

    Having said that, you'd rather be divisive and above water (as Johnson is in some polls) than divisive and below (as Trump pretty consistently was).
    Fair enough, it is a subjective opinion of mine (that people with no real opinion on political matters are less likely to vote) but that's half the fun
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited February 2021
    Fascinating video how on the luuvie industry is all just tax payer handouts, corporate shilling and tax dodging....

    https://youtu.be/hm4y8uqfu7I
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Sandpit said:

    NHS app to be converted for vaccine passports

    The NHS app will be converted into a digital Covid-19 certificate allowing people to use their phone to prove that they have been vaccinated or tested negative.

    No 10 is considering allowing businesses to demand to see the app to ensure that staff or customers are at a much lower risking of being infectious.

    Michael Gove will lead a review into the “deep and complex” issues around vaccine passports, which the government is considering again after previously branding them discriminatory.

    It is understood that the government wants to give people the option of showing either vaccination status or test results to ensure that the scheme not does penalise those who cannot receive the vaccine for health reasons.

    Health chiefs are looking at using the existing NHS app to offer an easy way for people to show that they have been vaccinated or recently tested. While the NHS contact tracing app is considered unsuitable because its design favours privacy, officials believe that the standard NHS appointment booking app would be relatively straightforward to use.

    The app already allows people to see their medical records — including Covid-19 vaccinations — and test results are shared with the GP databases it uses, making it feasible to upload and access them quickly.

    Health bosses say it is a “mix of ethical and clinical questions” that the review needs to answer, rather than technical ones. This could include whether people could input and verify the results of a lateral flow test carried out at home.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-app-to-be-converted-for-vaccine-passports-r0xx0mflp

    And if you’ve been vaccinated abroad, or are non-resident, or have an old phone with no data plan?

    Do we really have to go through this app crap all over again?
    Yep because it solves a problem that really doesn't exist but in this case allows then to tie your NHS account to it which is what they always really wanted.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,604
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Met a Labour voting friend today for a pleasant stroll in the park. Amongst the crocuses and daffodils! And in the sun!

    He ranted for a bit about Boris killing half of Britain, then I asked him about Starmer.

    "Useless. Boring" was his verdict, and my friend is on the Blairite wing (he hated Corbyn)

    Starmer has a problem if he is losing these people
    Don't blame me, I voted for Nandy
    Nandy is, arguably, even more boring. And painfully, painfully Woke.

    Somewhere deep in the Labour party there is a woman who will be their next leader, and the next Labour PM. I haven't seen her yet, personally
    Look up Rosena Allin-Khan
  • Sandpit said:


    And if you’ve been vaccinated abroad, or are non-resident, or have an old phone with no data plan?

    Do we really have to go through this app crap all over again?

    An upgraded NHS app can seamlessly cover a large proportion of the population. Those it doesn't cover can use an alternative method, such as a certificate from another country, or a print-out from the NHS vaccination system with a QR code, or a letter from their GP.

    This really isn't terribly complicated. It might be a bit rough-and ready, but so what? There's a massive cost to NOT doing this.
This discussion has been closed.