Colin Angus @VictimOfMaths New COVID cases in Bolton, Blackburn and (perhaps) Glasgow are showing signs of slowing down, but rising fast in Bedford, Clackmannanshire and Rossendale and there are quite a few bubbles threatening to break out of that main pack.
It's incredible how dramatic the differences can be. I live in Huntingdonshire which currently runs at 3 cases per 100,000. Next door Bedford is running at 202.
I also wonder about the skewing effect of surge testing in places. Must distort things a bit?
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.
I think they or some of them are scared.
People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.
All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.
Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!
Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.
Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.
Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
A case in point
Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.
IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.
As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.
Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.
Why now are you rowing in behind him?
Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?
The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.
Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.
The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.
Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.
The horse has bolted. To much applause.
Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
No.
Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
That's not true
Heroin is still dispensed to this day. A relative of mine gets it. He was an addict back in the 1960s, so presumably it was decided he was too far gone when the methadone thing came along. In a town of over 100,000 people he's the only person who is.
When I was a teenager in the late 50s we had an American lodger who was an addict and who was supplied by the local pharmacy. eta - he had been a disc jockey and knew Elvis!
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
meanwhile anybody accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer really should look at the story about a BBC presenter's passing away that is being trumpeted by at least the Mail and the Sun.
That's anti-Vaxxism, right there.
Have you taken the vaccine yet? Or are you and @Dura_Ace still flying the flag for antivaxxery on this site?
To be fair to @Dura_Ace i believe he doesn’t want to take the vaccine because it’s been tested on animals
That’s a principled position (if wrong headed) and not really “antivaxxery”
Why is it wrong-headed?
And what about my example of a 30-yr old with tinnitus when there seems to be strong anecdotal evidence (does such a thing exist?) of the vaccine making it worse?
The stewardship and dominion concept.
The view is that pharmaceuticals should not be tested on animals because it’s cruel. My view is that animal testing should be controlled and regulated but it is essential to medical science and I value human lives more highly.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.
I think they or some of them are scared.
People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.
All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.
Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!
Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.
Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.
Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
A case in point
Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.
IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.
As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.
Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.
Why now are you rowing in behind him?
Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?
The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.
Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.
The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.
Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.
The horse has bolted. To much applause.
Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
No.
Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
That's not true
Heroin is still dispensed to this day. A relative of mine gets it. He was an addict back in the 1960s, so presumably it was decided he was too far gone when the methadone thing came along. In a town of over 100,000 people he's the only person who is.
It was certainly dispensed to "registered addicts" - a humane system which worked well, which was foolishly stopped in the UK under pressure from America. I can believe a few ancient addicts still get it
The claim, however, was that heroin was "sold in Boots" like aspirin or condoms. This never happened
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.
I think they or some of them are scared.
People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.
All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.
Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!
Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.
Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.
Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
A case in point
Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.
IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.
As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.
Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.
Why now are you rowing in behind him?
Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?
The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.
Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.
The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.
Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.
The horse has bolted. To much applause.
Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
No.
Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
That's not true
Heroin is still dispensed to this day. A relative of mine gets it. He was an addict back in the 1960s, so presumably it was decided he was too far gone when the methadone thing came along. In a town of over 100,000 people he's the only person who is.
It was certainly dispensed to "registered addicts" - a humane system which worked well, which was foolishly stopped in the UK under pressure from America. I can believe a few ancient addicts can still get it
The claim, however, was that heroin was "sold in Boots" like aspirin or condoms. This never happened
It should.
I'd far rather heroin, or cocaine, or any other drug is dealt by a pharmacist for taxed profits than cut with whatever substances they use and sold by county line gangsters for criminal profits.
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
That looks pretty damn serious, how did that not come out sooner?
Probably because it's a Taiwanese website? So it is perceived as anti-China? It looks like slam dunk to me
"At the 28:10 mark of the podcast interview, Daszak states that researchers found that SARS likely originated from bats and then set out to find more SARS-related coronaviruses, eventually finding over 100. He observed that some coronaviruses can "get into human cells in the lab," and others can cause SARS disease in "humanized mouse models.""
Colin Angus @VictimOfMaths New COVID cases in Bolton, Blackburn and (perhaps) Glasgow are showing signs of slowing down, but rising fast in Bedford, Clackmannanshire and Rossendale and there are quite a few bubbles threatening to break out of that main pack.
It's incredible how dramatic the differences can be. I live in Huntingdonshire which currently runs at 3 cases per 100,000. Next door Bedford is running at 202.
I also wonder about the skewing effect of surge testing in places. Must distort things a bit?
To a degree but, at a guess, I'd imagine that the main factors are significant seeding of a population by infected individuals returning from India, followed by spread through areas with below average vaccination rates.
The latter explains why the variant is gradually bleeding outwards from Bolton and Blackburn into other parts of Lancashire (though notably NOT into Merseyside,) whereas the spread through the local authority areas surrounding Bedford (and especially those outside of Bedfordshire) is slim-to-non-existent.
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
And Gorgeous George will be taking votes off them in a by election with a more sensible left policy platform.
The only way Labour can save itself as a party of government now is to form an electoral coalition with the other “progressive” parties to stand on a single policy of bringing in PR then dissolving for an immediate election. Otherwise, by the time of the next election, the greens will have taken a huge proportion of their vote and the tories will be in again.
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
And Gorgeous George will be taking votes off them in a by election with a more sensible left policy platform.
The only way Labour can save itself as a party of government now is to form an electoral coalition with the other “progressive” parties to stand on a single policy of bringing in PR then dissolving for an immediate election. Otherwise, by the time of the next election, the greens will have taken a huge proportion of their vote and the tories will be in again.
The r0 of India-2 might be absolutely huge, going to be a difficult autumn and winter for the antivax holdouts if we can't reach herd immunity.
Even at herd immunity its still possible for a virus to circulate at low levels. Otherwise it'd be much easier to eradicate a virus.
The big thing will likely be clusters of anti-vaxxers in the UK, for they tend to cluster together. If we hit 90% of the UK being immune by Autumn we should be in a good place, but that will require booster shots for all, and jabs for children, and further increasing pressure on the anti-vaxxers.
Realistically the UK is *the* best placed country in the world when it comes to being able to avoid a winter wave. I fear for France and Southern US.
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
And Gorgeous George will be taking votes off them in a by election with a more sensible left policy platform.
The only way Labour can save itself as a party of government now is to form an electoral coalition with the other “progressive” parties to stand on a single policy of bringing in PR then dissolving for an immediate election. Otherwise, by the time of the next election, the greens will have taken a huge proportion of their vote and the tories will be in again.
If they try to bring in pr without a referendum I think that would be brave and I don't believe if there was a referendum pr would do any better than av
Colin Angus @VictimOfMaths New COVID cases in Bolton, Blackburn and (perhaps) Glasgow are showing signs of slowing down, but rising fast in Bedford, Clackmannanshire and Rossendale and there are quite a few bubbles threatening to break out of that main pack.
It's incredible how dramatic the differences can be. I live in Huntingdonshire which currently runs at 3 cases per 100,000. Next door Bedford is running at 202.
The interesting thing is that two of the worst places in the country for prevalence of B.1.617.2 are and have been in Oxfordshire, which is below 10 cases per 100k per week, and cases down 33% week on week. It shows that the variant first identified in India is not unstoppable, and that with sufficient coverage (which is relatively high in Oxfordshire) it will be suppressed.
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
I just had drinks with a smart leftwing friend. We talked about the usual gossip, but then we talked about the lab leak and he laughed it all off as conspiracy theory nonsense
It is amazing how easily intelligent people buy into bullshit, if it accords with their political beliefs.
My guess is, for my friend, the fact that Trump banged the lab leak drum transcends everything else. It saves him time thinking about the idea, as he can just presume it is nonsense, because Trump also believed it
We talked for a while, tho. And I saw doubts in his eyes. At one point he said "does it even matter if it came from the lab, what do we gain from knowing that"
I mean, my God
In fairness to him he asked for evidence, I have given it to him, and he seems perplexed
OT. Interesting documentary on the Soho bomber on Netflix. It's called 'Nail Bomber' If Richard Tyndall is here he'll be interested. There's plenty of John Tyndall in it who I remember you saying is a relative. Interesting how things have changed in the last 20 years. The Admiral Duncan was 54 Old Compton St my flat was 55 though I was on the other side of the road.
Yep. I perversely have a great deal to be grateful to John Tyndall for. As he was a family member - I think a first cousin of my father - he was always held up by my parents of an example of how dangerous an articulate psychopath could be. They taught me early on to look at what was being said not how it was said.
I am sure I was a disappointment to him - if he ever really knew much of me - given I was inspired by him to join the ANL just before it was wound up in 1981.
1981 reached quite a peak for ANL/Rock Against Racism, with the Northern Carnival Against Racism in Potternewton Park, Leeds. Au Pairs, Aswad, Misty in Roots and headlined by The Specials - whilst they were number one with Ghost Town.
I'm told, frequently if not ad nauseam, by some I have "done a deal with the Devil" (I've called Boris Johnson may things but I don't see him as the current incarnation of Lucifer Morningstar) and been (apparently) so terrified I have given away my personal freedoms, civil liberties and inside leg measurement to the Government in exchange for being kept safe from a virus, once termed the "Shanghai Sniffle" on here.
Okay...
First, I didn't vote for Boris Johnson but that doesn't matter because he is the Prime Minister with a majority in the Commons and his is the writ though which legislation runs.
Second, I was brought up to be a law-abiding individual. Now, there are some laws I may not support or like but I have a greater respect for the rule of law and I don't approve of those who break the law. I'm perfectly happy to argue and debate whether a law is right, proper and effective and I would campaign for a law to be repealed or amended but that's the virtue of public debate.
Third, I'm an overweight man in my 60s - coronavirus might kill me (it might not). My brother had it and suffered for months. This crisis has emphasised the not unreasonable notion jobs, businesses and incomes can be replaced or supported, lives can't and for all those who rightly assert the mental health impact of a lost business, I understand but there is help out there which can and should be accessible. If we have reached a point where human beings are valued for the lives they live rather than as economic drones, that's a step forward in my view.
Fourth, I yield to no one in my admiration for human ingenuity. We have performed miracles in getting a number of effective vaccines created, tested and available in a remarkably short period of time. I am now more convinced than ever climate change can be resolved but we need to give it the priority and funding vaccine research is enjoying.
Fifth, it all depends on what you mean by "freedom". I've always been able to go out for my daily walk and while I've missed the racecourse and the café, our restrictions have been far less draconian than those imposed in many other countries. It's how you define the quality of your life and that's a subjective thing.
Sixth, I do and have noted my concern over the amount of personal data collected and used by both Governments and private companies and while @rcs1000 makes the not unreasonable point we could all do more to protect our privacy, the fact is we shouldn't have to. The culture and emphasis should not be on data collection and manipulation but on preservation of privacy. Business and Government culture should be moved away from the power of information to the protection of the individual. It's my experience constipating information systems with more and more "data" is incredibly ineffective.
It's one example (this contribution is another) where less might be more.
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
The UK does top the Covid death charts. Not necessarily the death rate chart, I grant you, though even there we are close to the top, especially if you ignore the smaller states. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
And Gorgeous George will be taking votes off them in a by election with a more sensible left policy platform.
The only way Labour can save itself as a party of government now is to form an electoral coalition with the other “progressive” parties to stand on a single policy of bringing in PR then dissolving for an immediate election. Otherwise, by the time of the next election, the greens will have taken a huge proportion of their vote and the tories will be in again.
The problem with any kind of electoral pact like that is Labour would have to admit in public that it thought it would never be popular enough again to win an election under a system in which it was last successful as recently as 2005. This would provide the electorate with more reasons NOT to vote Labour: the party would be telling people firstly that it could no longer be bothered to win broad based support anymore, preferring to give up on compromising with the electorate and instead retreating into their own narrow comfort zone; and secondly, that it saw its route back to power as gaming the electoral system to try to get in through the back door, even though its support was dropping off a cliff in much (perhaps even most) of the country. This is not a good look.
There is also the additional complicating factor that 100% of existing Labour voters will not necessarily be obedient and back, for example, a Liberal Democrat candidate where they live, if Labour withdraws its own candidate and invites them to back the representative of the pact instead. A non-negligible slice of Labour support will go Tory either to extend the middle finger towards the party that has abandoned them, or because they don't actually want PR.
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
Does blaming wet markets and calling for their closure amount to absolving China? All that is up in the air is which bit of China to blame. Arguably, if it does turn out to be related to US-funded experiments, that might even be closer to absolving China.
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
I just had drinks with a smart leftwing friend. We talked about the usual gossip, but then we talked about the lab leak and he laughed it all off as conspiracy theory nonsense
It is amazing how easily intelligent people buy into bullshit, if it accords with their political beliefs.
My guess is, for my friend, the fact that Trump banged the lab leak drum transcends everything else. It saves him time thinking about the idea, as he can just presume it is nonsense, because Trump also believed it
We talked for a while, tho. And I saw doubts in his eyes. At one point he said "does it even matter if it came from the lab, what do we gain from knowing that"
I mean, my God
In fairness to him he asked for evidence, I have given it to him, and he seems perplexed
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
I just had drinks with a smart leftwing friend. We talked about the usual gossip, but then we talked about the lab leak and he laughed it all off as conspiracy theory nonsense
It is amazing how easily intelligent people buy into bullshit, if it accords with their political beliefs.
My guess is, for my friend, the fact that Trump banged the lab leak drum transcends everything else. It saves him time thinking about the idea, as he can just presume it is nonsense, because Trump also believed it
We talked for a while, tho. And I saw doubts in his eyes. At one point he said "does it even matter if it came from the lab, what do we gain from knowing that"
I mean, my God
In fairness to him he asked for evidence, I have given it to him, and he seems perplexed
And then you both set off home through the snow.
He's just gone back to denouncing it as conspiracy theory bullshit, to be fair
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
I just had drinks with a smart leftwing friend. We talked about the usual gossip, but then we talked about the lab leak and he laughed it all off as conspiracy theory nonsense
It is amazing how easily intelligent people buy into bullshit, if it accords with their political beliefs.
My guess is, for my friend, the fact that Trump banged the lab leak drum transcends everything else. It saves him time thinking about the idea, as he can just presume it is nonsense, because Trump also believed it
We talked for a while, tho. And I saw doubts in his eyes. At one point he said "does it even matter if it came from the lab, what do we gain from knowing that"
I mean, my God
In fairness to him he asked for evidence, I have given it to him, and he seems perplexed
And then you both set off home through the snow.
Given the weather I'd probably opt for a lift from a surprisingly insightful Albanian taxi driver.
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
The UK does top the Covid death charts. Not necessarily the death rate chart, I grant you, though even there we are close to the top, especially if you ignore the smaller states. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
We must be looking at different charts, it’s at the top of neither chart.
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
And Gorgeous George will be taking votes off them in a by election with a more sensible left policy platform.
The only way Labour can save itself as a party of government now is to form an electoral coalition with the other “progressive” parties to stand on a single policy of bringing in PR then dissolving for an immediate election. Otherwise, by the time of the next election, the greens will have taken a huge proportion of their vote and the tories will be in again.
There is also the additional complicating factor that 100% of existing Labour voters will not necessarily be obedient and back, for example, a Liberal Democrat candidate where they live, if Labour withdraws its own candidate and invites them to back the representative of the pact instead. A non-negligible slice of Labour support will go Tory either to extend the middle finger towards the party that has abandoned them, or because they don't actually want PR.
Anyone who has seen multi preference voting will know that people, for whatever reason, can come up with surprising selections. Plenty of Tory/Lab Green/Tory combos during PCC elections and so on. So withdrawal will see some interesting responses.
The problem with any kind of electoral pact like that is Labour would have to admit in public that it thought it would never be popular enough again to win an election under a system in which it was last successful as recently as 2005. This would provide the electorate with more reasons NOT to vote Labour: the party would be telling people firstly that it could no longer be bothered to win broad based support anymore, preferring to give up on compromising with the electorate and instead retreating into their own narrow comfort zone; and secondly, that it saw its route back to power as gaming the electoral system to try to get in through the back door, even though its support was dropping off a cliff in much (perhaps even most) of the country. This is not a good look.
There is also the additional complicating factor that 100% of existing Labour voters will not necessarily be obedient and back, for example, a Liberal Democrat candidate where they live, if Labour withdraws its own candidate and invites them to back the representative of the pact instead. A non-negligible slice of Labour support will go Tory either to extend the middle finger towards the party that has abandoned them, or because they don't actually want PR.
There won't be an "electoral pact".
What will happen when the Conservatives become unpopular is people will start looking for alternatives. This will begin initially as a "protest" vote so the LDs, Greens, Residents (in local elections) and Independents will be the beneficiaries.
The "protest" vote returns to the Conservatives at a GE but at local elections, Councillors are lost and Councils lost.
Eventually, there will be a growing desire to look for an alternative Government but to achieve that, to replace Conservative MPs with non-Conservative MPs, the electorate in each seat will need to work out which Party is the one most likely to achieve that. Local campaigning and Council strength will be the tools to help inform that decision and it will vary hugely.
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.
I think they or some of them are scared.
People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.
All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.
Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!
Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.
Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.
Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
A case in point
Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.
IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.
As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.
Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.
Why now are you rowing in behind him?
Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?
The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.
Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.
The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.
Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.
The horse has bolted. To much applause.
Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
No.
Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
That's not true
Heroin is still dispensed to this day. A relative of mine gets it. He was an addict back in the 1960s, so presumably it was decided he was too far gone when the methadone thing came along. In a town of over 100,000 people he's the only person who is.
It was certainly dispensed to "registered addicts" - a humane system which worked well, which was foolishly stopped in the UK under pressure from America. I can believe a few ancient addicts can still get it
The claim, however, was that heroin was "sold in Boots" like aspirin or condoms. This never happened
It should.
I'd far rather heroin, or cocaine, or any other drug is dealt by a pharmacist for taxed profits than cut with whatever substances they use and sold by county line gangsters for criminal profits.
We have a worst of all worlds situation in the UK. Drugs are effectively decriminalised, but not regulated and often cut with very dodgy stuff, and is disproportionately uses police time as well as funding organised crime, rather than the Exchequer.
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
Does blaming wet markets and calling for their closure amount to absolving China? All that is up in the air is which bit of China to blame. Arguably, if it does turn out to be related to US-funded experiments, that might even be closer to absolving China.
FFS
There is quite a large difference between a virus escaping from a lab because they were doing risky bat coronavirus research banned in some countries - maybe research that involved deliberately making the virus NASTIER - and a virus that accidentally leapt from a civet cat to a shopper in a market.
The latter could happen in many places around the world, the former could only really happen in the only lab in the world doing dangerous novel bat coronavirus gain-of-function research, in Wuhan, China
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths. Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
The UK does top the Covid death charts. Not necessarily the death rate chart, I grant you, though even there we are close to the top, especially if you ignore the smaller states. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
Not a snowballs chance in hell though that the UK has a high death total (let alone death rate) than Italy. The UK has 119,320 deaths by end of April, Italy has 116,410 deaths by the end of January. Nobody could believe fewer than 3k deaths have occurred in February, March and April in Italy.
The difference is that Britain is much better at identifying those who have died, unlike Italy.
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
I just had drinks with a smart leftwing friend. We talked about the usual gossip, but then we talked about the lab leak and he laughed it all off as conspiracy theory nonsense
It is amazing how easily intelligent people buy into bullshit, if it accords with their political beliefs.
My guess is, for my friend, the fact that Trump banged the lab leak drum transcends everything else. It saves him time thinking about the idea, as he can just presume it is nonsense, because Trump also believed it
We talked for a while, tho. And I saw doubts in his eyes. At one point he said "does it even matter if it came from the lab, what do we gain from knowing that"
I mean, my God
In fairness to him he asked for evidence, I have given it to him, and he seems perplexed
We don't know whether the lab leak theory is correct or incorrect. It is certainly a plausible hypothesis - and the fact that Trump espoused it probably did increase your friends scepticism.
But it is worth remembering that other - very similar - viruses such as SARS and MERS made it across to humans without needing to go via a lab. It is also worth remembering that pretty much every piece promoting this theory (including the one you posted most recently) makes a really big thing about the fact that we haven't found the exact animal host, when we very rarely do find exact animal hosts for diseases. We've never found the host for SARS, HIV/AIDS, or Ebola for example.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
I just had drinks with a smart leftwing friend. We talked about the usual gossip, but then we talked about the lab leak and he laughed it all off as conspiracy theory nonsense
It is amazing how easily intelligent people buy into bullshit, if it accords with their political beliefs.
My guess is, for my friend, the fact that Trump banged the lab leak drum transcends everything else. It saves him time thinking about the idea, as he can just presume it is nonsense, because Trump also believed it
We talked for a while, tho. And I saw doubts in his eyes. At one point he said "does it even matter if it came from the lab, what do we gain from knowing that"
I mean, my God
In fairness to him he asked for evidence, I have given it to him, and he seems perplexed
We don't know whether the lab leak theory is correct or incorrect. It is certainly a plausible hypothesis - and the fact that Trump espoused it probably did increase your friends scepticism.
But it is worth remembering that other - very similar - viruses such as SARS and MERS made it across to humans without needing to go via a lab. It is also worth remembering that pretty much every piece promoting this theory (including the one you posted most recently) makes a really big thing about the fact that we haven't found the exact animal host, when we very rarely do find exact animal hosts for diseases. We've never found the host for SARS, HIV/AIDS, or Ebola for example.
At the moment all we have is circumstantial evidence. And the circumstantial evidence is very largely in favour of lab-leak. Occam's Razor
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
'New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks'
This would confirm Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
"When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the Gain of Function experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
I have found it bizarre how quick people were to absolve China of blame. The broad strokes have pretty obvious since the start. Yunnan bat caves to Wuhan lab to accidental release. And it’s most likely killed more than the Holocaust by now.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
I just had drinks with a smart leftwing friend. We talked about the usual gossip, but then we talked about the lab leak and he laughed it all off as conspiracy theory nonsense
It is amazing how easily intelligent people buy into bullshit, if it accords with their political beliefs.
My guess is, for my friend, the fact that Trump banged the lab leak drum transcends everything else. It saves him time thinking about the idea, as he can just presume it is nonsense, because Trump also believed it
We talked for a while, tho. And I saw doubts in his eyes. At one point he said "does it even matter if it came from the lab, what do we gain from knowing that"
I mean, my God
In fairness to him he asked for evidence, I have given it to him, and he seems perplexed
We don't know whether the lab leak theory is correct or incorrect. It is certainly a plausible hypothesis - and the fact that Trump espoused it probably did increase your friends scepticism.
But it is worth remembering that other - very similar - viruses such as SARS and MERS made it across to humans without needing to go via a lab. It is also worth remembering that pretty much every piece promoting this theory (including the one you posted most recently) makes a really big thing about the fact that we haven't found the exact animal host, when we very rarely do find exact animal hosts for diseases. We've never found the host for SARS, HIV/AIDS, or Ebola for example.
At the moment all we have is circumstantial evidence. And the circumstantial evidence is very largely in favour of lab-leak. Occam's Razor
Occam’s, as in the simplest, most obvious explanation?
... yet more **** from LeadronicT!
If we are all being “surveilled” by these aliens, maybe this is their disease?
"But there is a clear and verified sequence of events that strongly suggests that this pandemic, which has caused more than 168 million cases and more than 3.4 million deaths worldwide, may well have originated from viruses carried in bats in an abandoned mine that then passed through a Chinese research facility before spreading out of control among the people of Wuhan."
'New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks'
This would confirm Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
I'm not surprised.
I said for a while that staff going in and out (which they have to do) would be by far the greater risk.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
The Guardian does say over 40,000 care home deaths but 286 from placing patients from hospital is unbelievably low and needs HMG to make this point. . Even the Guardian is
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
He seems to lean (but not 100%) towards the natural origins vs lab leak theory.
He would say that wouldn't he?
He's the guy who coordinated a letter to the Lancet in March 2020 saying def natural origin, and anyone who disagrees with us is a wanker, without declaring any interest.
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
Tbh I’m more interested in how many died after catching it in hospital.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
Tbh I’m more interested in how many died after catching it in hospital.
If you have hospitals, you inevitably have hospital acquired infections. The care home thing by contrast was highly avoidable.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
He seems to lean (but not 100%) towards the natural origins vs lab leak theory.
He would say that wouldn't he?
He's the guy who coordinated a letter to the Lancet in March 2020 saying def natural origin, and anyone who disagrees with us is a wanker, without declaring any interest.
Incredibly, he was also in the WHO team that went to "investigate" the lab leak hypothesis, and others, in Wuhan
"In light of the controversy and ahead of the publication of their full report, three members of the WHO mission, virologist Marion Koopmans, ZOOLOGIST PETER DASZAK and consultant clinical epidemiologist and senior medical adviser at Public Health England, John Watson, spoke about their experiences as part of an event hosted by international affairs think tank Chatham House"
Hello, let me introduce you to Gloucester's very own specialist Underground Forensic Detective, Doctor Frederick C West
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
I find those numbers very difficult to believe given that according to the Guardian quoting PHE, "Across the UK, 23,916 people had died from confirmed or suspected Covid in care homes by 1 January 2021 – 31% of all deaths from the virus".
Are they really saying that only 1% of those deaths was caused by the transfer of patients back from hospitals?
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
I find those numbers very difficult to believe given that according to the Guardian quoting PHE, "Across the UK, 23,916 people had died from confirmed or suspected Covid in care homes by 1 January 2021 – 31% of all deaths from the virus".
Are they really saying that only 1% of those deaths was caused by the transfer of patients back from hospitals?
Seems so and it is the Guardian quoting PHE
But Jenny Harries did say today it was carers and visitors who were the principal cause of transmissions
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
He seems to lean (but not 100%) towards the natural origins vs lab leak theory.
Without commenting on the rest of Leon's conclusions, isn't that his exact point? That one of those most critical of the lab leak hypothesis was himself connected to the lab but chose not to reveal this.
Hola this is not an experimental vaccine it's been thoroughly tested over the past three months pop pickers, here's an interesting thing make of it what you will.
Just been out today for an extremely agreeable lunch in town, place was packed not a facemask in sight. Then, as penance, I went to see my aged aunt who a) has been double jabbed; b) has tinnitus; and c) sits glued to the phone in radio shows all day.
She was complaining that since the jabs her tinnitus was much worse. Further, she assured me that the radio phone-ins were full of people saying the same thing. Since the jab their tinnitus had worsened.
A bit of google fu revealed that the NHS says it is a very low occurring side effect and phrased the enquiry "worsened tinnitus and developed tinnitus". But these of course are two different things. People who already have tinnitus are different in their physiology or whatever it is that causes it, to those who don't have it.
So..what if the vaccine actually does exacerbate tinnitus.
Was that on the tin?
I mean in the round it's probably better for my aunt to have worse tinnitus and the jabs, if that's the reason, than be exposed to the virus.
But it is a potential side effect from this super safe, thoroughly tested vaccine that no one foresaw.
Fancy.
IF I wrote this I would get dogs' abuse.
I appreciate that. People on here are strange sometimes.
I think they or some of them are scared.
People are scared because our government IS authoritarian and they are at the mercy of it. And it can do what it wants, when it wants, with virtually no comeback, on a whim.
All the time they have been pouring scorn or ridicule on people who only wanted to help them, and support for whom might actually put some pressure on the government.
Laurence Fox, Richard Tice, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young......Sneers of derision.......Racists!!!!........Fascists!!!!
Well who the f8ck else is going to get you your freedom back? Who else is asking the questions you want asked.
Johnson? Starmer? Cummings? Whitty? Grow up.
Steve Baker etc are going to put more real pressure on ensuring that we get our freedoms back than any of that insane clown posse.
A case in point
Baker is powerless because he is part of the team. A word from the chief whip and he rolls over. And he's swamped by labour MPs anyway.
IF Tice had taken 500 councillors off the tories in May, we would be exiting on June 21 no danger.
As it is, too many people believe bullsh*t like this and stay on the reservation/
Nah. Baker is powerful because he is part of the team. A word to the chief whip, or a threatened letter to the 1922 and Boris has no choice but to sit up and listen.
Councillors don't mean shit. Especially 3 years before the next election.
But Philip he has been railing against the principle of the restrictions for some time. The principle, mind, not the reason for their establishment.
Why now are you rowing in behind him?
Can you see how the government has now got into the habit of imposing restrictions on us "just in case" or "to be cautious", etc?
The principle of a government not doing this should have been inviolate from the start but many on here applauded it as though the principle was malleable.
I've been glad he's been against the principle of restrictions all along, as so am I. The case needs to be made that these are happening despite principles and it should only ever be the last resort. I supported Baker voting against extending lockdown laws as they were in both November 20 and March 21. Baker nodded through the original lockdown law in March 20 which was a sign to me it was absolutely necessary.
Its also why I couldn't care less about "locking down too late" - there's no such thing as too late unless the NHS collapses which didn't happen, locking down unnecessarily is a far greater evil.
The likes of Baker are like Jiminy Cricket, ensuring the principles and conscience are always there as a reminder.
We have got to the point where a majority of the nation and on PB accept legal restrictions on our liberty to achieve a public health objective.
Look at the (in my view slightly desperate, embarrassed) reaction to @contrarian.
The horse has bolted. To much applause.
Do you support laws against selling heroin in Boots?
No.
Then your position is much more extreme than you make out.
Heroin used to be sold in Boots within living memory. It was quite uncontroversial at the time.
Heroin is still used clinically, but I think only in end of life situations where you are not going to worry about side effects. I'm surprised it was sold over the counter as it has been a recreational drug since at least the 1920's.
Heroin was a Bayer trademark, along with Aspirin another Bayer painkiller.
Er, no. It’s used widely in medicine, including for pregnant women in pain, and various other pain relief scenarios. (It’s called diamorphine in the medical space - heroin was a brand name AFAIK)
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
I find those numbers very difficult to believe given that according to the Guardian quoting PHE, "Across the UK, 23,916 people had died from confirmed or suspected Covid in care homes by 1 January 2021 – 31% of all deaths from the virus".
Are they really saying that only 1% of those deaths was caused by the transfer of patients back from hospitals?
Quite believable given the prevalence of the virus in society and the volume of staff going in and out of the homes.
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
I find those numbers very difficult to believe given that according to the Guardian quoting PHE, "Across the UK, 23,916 people had died from confirmed or suspected Covid in care homes by 1 January 2021 – 31% of all deaths from the virus".
Are they really saying that only 1% of those deaths was caused by the transfer of patients back from hospitals?
I imagine it is people who were in hospital, transferred back and died in a short period. So meaningless
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
If 21 June is cancelled it'll be because this government has singularly failed to protect our borders and has allowed the Indian variant in.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
I know all of that.
You could have told us? Because, given Daszak's role in squashing - or trying to squash - the Wuhan lab leak theory in the Lancet letter (while fibbing about his conflict of interest), and given his later role as part of the WHO mission to "uncover the origins of Covid in Wuhan!", it seems fairly relevant that his entire professional career was bound up with "gain of function" bat coronavirus research in the lab in, er, Wuhan
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
Plus by then they will have been offered the vaccine. Into the twenties next week.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
Given that (a) most of the country is almost unaffected by the variant, (b) the original rationale of lockdowns was to preserve the healthcare system and expressly not to save every single life possible, and (c) Covid death rates amongst twentysomethings are vanishingly small - and nearly all of those liable to suffer badly would, I assume, be amongst the clinically vulnerable groups who've already had at least one vaccination months ago under JCVI Phase One - few people would fall for such a transparently false excuse.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
I know all of that.
You could have told us? Because, given Daszak's role in squashing - or trying to squash - the Wuhan lab leak theory in the Lancet letter (while fibbing about his conflict of interest), and given his later role as part of the WHO mission to "uncover the origins of Covid in Wuhan!", it seems fairly relevant that his entire professional career was bound up with "gain of function" bat coronavirus research in the lab in, er, Wuhan
Its all a bit weird, the Lancet should surely be declaring conflicts of interest in their reporting and his role should have surely been public knowledge? 🤔
But then the Lancet just swallowed the Russian Sputnik V "research" unquestioningly showing it was great and giving it credibility, despite the data behind it being seemingly unverified and dodgy.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
If 21 June is cancelled it'll be because this government has singularly failed to protect our borders and has allowed the Indian variant in.
I think the chances of continuing restrictions are very small. We have an ancient and honourable tradition of civil disobedience. People will be voting with their feet. The outbreak of the Indian varient is a consequence of the government's failure to close down the airports.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
The risks to the under 30s are very low however. They might catch it, sure, but they are unlikely to become ill from it.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
I know all of that.
You could have told us? Because, given Daszak's role in squashing - or trying to squash - the Wuhan lab leak theory in the Lancet letter (while fibbing about his conflict of interest), and given his later role as part of the WHO mission to "uncover the origins of Covid in Wuhan!", it seems fairly relevant that his entire professional career was bound up with "gain of function" bat coronavirus research in the lab in, er, Wuhan
Its all a bit weird, the Lancet should surely be declaring conflicts of interest in their reporting and his role should have surely been public knowledge? 🤔
But then the Lancet just swallowed the Russian Sputnik V "research" unquestioningly showing it was great and giving it credibility, despite the data behind it being seemingly unverified and dodgy.
It stinks, basically. And I will not trust the bloody "Lancet" ever again
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
The Guardian does say over 40,000 care home deaths but 286 from placing patients from hospital is unbelievably low and needs HMG to make this point. . Even the Guardian is
It's one of those things which makes sense when you consider it - the number of movements from the hospitals to care homes, vs the revolving door of staff and visitors coming in and out of the homes. Especially staff on contract moving between homes.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
I know all of that.
So what is your point about the NIH?
It’s more relevant the other way round. I haven’t dug into the detail, but AIUI the NIH was funding Daszuk who then subcontracted WVI to do some of the work.
IMHO that’s not the same as the NIH funding work in WVI (although the money came from them) because they don’t have direct responsibility
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
Plus by then they will have been offered the vaccine. Into the twenties next week.
My 26 year old son was called in and vaccinated on Tuesday. Although we have no cases locally we are very close to Bedford which is a major hot-spot.
It’s even better than that: it’s brilliant news. By my calcs, Hancock’s statistic (10% of people in hospital have had 2 doses of vaccine) implies the vaccine is having at least a 95% protective effect – and probably more like 98%, or maybe even higher. Let me explain… 1/n
"A public health researcher admitted Thursday that many scientists ignored or rejected the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis due to their dislike of former President Donald Trump.
"The lab leak theory “got jumbled up together with some of the more crazy aspects of Trump, and scientists recoiled against that and went in favor of the theory that COVID-19 had emerged out of a natural process versus a lab escape,” J. Stephen Morrison, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Global Health Policy Center, told NPR’s “Up First.”"
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
Life is not risk free. Government is not about eliminating risk.
Those two sentences and a vague understanding of how science works should be enough to ensure that we reopen the country and society adapts in a timely manner.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
Indeed which is why I added the bit at the end. I think the Government should be saying that while social distancing etc ends as a legal requirement 21/6, that anyone who is able to work from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
No compulsion by law, but a nudge to employers as well as public pressure to be reasonable and that people should keep in mind that as we get back to normal we need to give considerations to those waiting for their vaccines.
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
I know all of that.
So what is your point about the NIH?
It’s more relevant the other way round. I haven’t dug into the detail, but AIUI the NIH was funding Daszuk who then subcontracted WVI to do some of the work.
IMHO that’s not the same as the NIH funding work in WVI (although the money came from them) because they don’t have direct responsibility
But we're talking about Daszak's culpability, and he plainly did have direct responsibility. Probably jointly with NIH, because I don't see them just handing over the dosh and saying Do whatever you want with it.
Characteristically excellent work from James, calculating the level of vaccine efficacy against B.1.617.2 that is implied by the vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed composition of hospitalised cases announced by Matt Hancock earlier
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
As a younger person who won't be jabbed by the re-opening date, my, and my friends' situation is that we are expected to be back in the office for 21st of June, despite working for 6-18 months fully remotely with no issue.
It's especially galling given that I'm likely going to have to move out in order to not endanger a close family member whose immune system will be going down the drain due to medical treatment, despite having proved perfectly well that I am a good employee when working from home.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
Me too. Also, I very much believe that if we don't get rid of restrictions this summer then there's no way we'll be rid of them by next summer and they'll be much easier to keep long term as the "new normal".
New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks
And this confirms Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
It's an astonishingly low number given how much the issue has been the focus of complaints about the actions of the government. Obviously it matters, but also clearly it matters not very much compared to all the other things that were happening in the first wave when testing was barely showing the tip of the infection iceberg.
I find those numbers very difficult to believe given that according to the Guardian quoting PHE, "Across the UK, 23,916 people had died from confirmed or suspected Covid in care homes by 1 January 2021 – 31% of all deaths from the virus".
Are they really saying that only 1% of those deaths was caused by the transfer of patients back from hospitals?
Seems so and it is the Guardian quoting PHE
But Jenny Harries did say today it was carers and visitors who were the principal cause of transmissions
Though with the near total absence in the first wave of both PPE equipment and training in the Social Care sector, and agency staff moving between homes to cover sickness and other absences, you only need a few sparks to set off a conflagration.
It’s even better than that: it’s brilliant news. By my calcs, Hancock’s statistic (10% of people in hospital have had 2 doses of vaccine) implies the vaccine is having at least a 95% protective effect – and probably more like 98%, or maybe even higher. Let me explain… 1/n
Exeter Rugby is ground zero. There's a hilarious interview where the Head Coach starts going on about how one of their players (Harry Williams) is enlightening them about all the nefarious things the Govt does with the DNA from Covid tests. Seems like it's spread.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
Indeed which is why I added the bit at the end. I think the Government should be saying that while social distancing etc ends as a legal requirement 21/6, that anyone who is able to work from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
No compulsion by law, but a nudge to employers as well as public pressure to be reasonable and that people should keep in mind that as we get back to normal we need to give considerations to those waiting for their vaccines.
Does Social Distancing end in June? I though it just permitting opening of nightclubs etc.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
Life is not risk free. Government is not about eliminating risk.
Those two sentences and a vague understanding of how science works should be enough to ensure that we reopen the country and society adapts in a timely manner.
If it doesn't, I will be furious.
Quite. Besides which, we should reject the notion that mask wearing and social distancing have no negative consequences *at all*, and may therefore reasonably be demanded of us for years and years.
This bullshit all has to stop at some point. If the Covid death rate is ground down as low as it's likely to get (given that almost no-one is still banging the Zero Covid tambourine, and it's therefore generally accepted that we are going to have to live with it as an endemic disease,) and we also have a reasonable degree of confidence that getting rid of these remaining countermeasures will not lead to a major resurgence of serious illness and death, then that's the time to burn the security blanket and get on with a normal life.
Personally I reckon foreign travel restrictions will be around for a while, and masks may survive on public transport and in clinical settings, but I'm expecting all the rest of the rules to go in the dustbin next month. We ought not to be expected to spend half our lives walking around in gags, and having to decide which friends we can and cannot have dinner with, indefinitely.
It’s even better than that: it’s brilliant news. By my calcs, Hancock’s statistic (10% of people in hospital have had 2 doses of vaccine) implies the vaccine is having at least a 95% protective effect – and probably more like 98%, or maybe even higher. Let me explain… 1/n
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
Indeed which is why I added the bit at the end. I think the Government should be saying that while social distancing etc ends as a legal requirement 21/6, that anyone who is able to work from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
No compulsion by law, but a nudge to employers as well as public pressure to be reasonable and that people should keep in mind that as we get back to normal we need to give considerations to those waiting for their vaccines.
Does Social Distancing end in June? I though it just permitting opening of nightclubs etc.
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
Indeed which is why I added the bit at the end. I think the Government should be saying that while social distancing etc ends as a legal requirement 21/6, that anyone who is able to work from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
No compulsion by law, but a nudge to employers as well as public pressure to be reasonable and that people should keep in mind that as we get back to normal we need to give considerations to those waiting for their vaccines.
Does Social Distancing end in June? I though it just permitting opening of nightclubs etc.
The Government has left some wriggle room, with all its language about reviews of this, that and the other, but in practice Step 4 is assumed by the public to mean a total or near-total end to the rules.
Or, to put it another way, how is a socially-distanced, mask-wearing nightclub meant to operate? Will there be wardens patrolling the dancefloor to keep non-household groups two metres apart and watch out for illicit snogging? I mean, honestly!
I don't see how the Government gets away with stalling on June 21st now without very nasty consequences.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
If 21 June is postponed to protect antivaxxers then I will be picking up my pitchfork.
I would agree with you in principle but what if it is postponed to protect those who have not yet been offered the jab? Basically everyone under 30.
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
That's fairer - if there were evidence under 30s were at serious risk and we were just planning on waiting a couple more weeks to finish offering first vaccines to under 30s and having a couple of weeks for it to go live.
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
The 'choose to be more cautious if they wish' is not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Many firms are already saying that all staff will have to return to work in late June/early July and of course many have worked throughout and have relied upon the precautions - distancing, masks etc to keep them safe. What the Government are saying is that all that ends on June 21st.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
Indeed which is why I added the bit at the end. I think the Government should be saying that while social distancing etc ends as a legal requirement 21/6, that anyone who is able to work from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
No compulsion by law, but a nudge to employers as well as public pressure to be reasonable and that people should keep in mind that as we get back to normal we need to give considerations to those waiting for their vaccines.
Does Social Distancing end in June? I though it just permitting opening of nightclubs etc.
Most people I know are expecting it to - whatever communications there may have been, expectations for many are that June is when all measures end.
Comments
eta - he had been a disc jockey and knew Elvis!
Here is Peter Daszak, the guy who funded the "gain of function" research on the coronavirus at Wuhan. The guy who wrote to the Lancet in early 2020, denouncing the "lab leak" hypothesis, without revealing his connections to the lab
In this video, taken even as the virus was kicking off, in December 2019, he says he has been to Yunnan to get the virus, he strongly hints he is "manipulating the new bat coronavirus", in Wuhan, and he is certainly injecting it into "humanised mice"
Watch from about 28 minutes in
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4104828
The view is that pharmaceuticals should not be tested on animals because it’s cruel. My view is that animal testing should be controlled and regulated but it is essential to medical science and I value human lives more highly.
The claim, however, was that heroin was "sold in Boots" like aspirin or condoms. This never happened
I'd far rather heroin, or cocaine, or any other drug is dealt by a pharmacist for taxed profits than cut with whatever substances they use and sold by county line gangsters for criminal profits.
Keir Starmer claiming the UK is number one in Europe for Covid deaths.
Diane Abbott: claiming the shooting in Peckham was a targetted attack without evidence.
"At the 28:10 mark of the podcast interview, Daszak states that researchers found that SARS likely originated from bats and then set out to find more SARS-related coronaviruses, eventually finding over 100. He observed that some coronaviruses can "get into human cells in the lab," and others can cause SARS disease in "humanized mouse models.""
The latter explains why the variant is gradually bleeding outwards from Bolton and Blackburn into other parts of Lancashire (though notably NOT into Merseyside,) whereas the spread through the local authority areas surrounding Bedford (and especially those outside of Bedfordshire) is slim-to-non-existent.
"Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the Wuhan IV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. "You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily." What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: "Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.""
Jesus
The only way Labour can save itself as a party of government now is to form an electoral coalition with the other “progressive” parties to stand on a single policy of bringing in PR then dissolving for an immediate election. Otherwise, by the time of the next election, the greens will have taken a huge proportion of their vote and the tories will be in again.
Realistically the UK is *the* best placed country in the world when it comes to being able to avoid a winter wave. I fear for France and Southern US.
The last step still to be revealed is the CCP delaying sounding the warning alarm, to guarantee that every country would be as fucked as they knew they were going to be.
It is amazing how easily intelligent people buy into bullshit, if it accords with their political beliefs.
My guess is, for my friend, the fact that Trump banged the lab leak drum transcends everything else. It saves him time thinking about the idea, as he can just presume it is nonsense, because Trump also believed it
We talked for a while, tho. And I saw doubts in his eyes. At one point he said "does it even matter if it came from the lab, what do we gain from knowing that"
I mean, my God
In fairness to him he asked for evidence, I have given it to him, and he seems perplexed
As our cities burned with riots.
Okay...
First, I didn't vote for Boris Johnson but that doesn't matter because he is the Prime Minister with a majority in the Commons and his is the writ though which legislation runs.
Second, I was brought up to be a law-abiding individual. Now, there are some laws I may not support or like but I have a greater respect for the rule of law and I don't approve of those who break the law. I'm perfectly happy to argue and debate whether a law is right, proper and effective and I would campaign for a law to be repealed or amended but that's the virtue of public debate.
Third, I'm an overweight man in my 60s - coronavirus might kill me (it might not). My brother had it and suffered for months. This crisis has emphasised the not unreasonable notion jobs, businesses and incomes can be replaced or supported, lives can't and for all those who rightly assert the mental health impact of a lost business, I understand but there is help out there which can and should be accessible. If we have reached a point where human beings are valued for the lives they live rather than as economic drones, that's a step forward in my view.
Fourth, I yield to no one in my admiration for human ingenuity. We have performed miracles in getting a number of effective vaccines created, tested and available in a remarkably short period of time. I am now more convinced than ever climate change can be resolved but we need to give it the priority and funding vaccine research is enjoying.
Fifth, it all depends on what you mean by "freedom". I've always been able to go out for my daily walk and while I've missed the racecourse and the café, our restrictions have been far less draconian than those imposed in many other countries. It's how you define the quality of your life and that's a subjective thing.
Sixth, I do and have noted my concern over the amount of personal data collected and used by both Governments and private companies and while @rcs1000 makes the not unreasonable point we could all do more to protect our privacy, the fact is we shouldn't have to. The culture and emphasis should not be on data collection and manipulation but on preservation of privacy. Business and Government culture should be moved away from the power of information to the protection of the individual. It's my experience constipating information systems with more and more "data" is incredibly ineffective.
It's one example (this contribution is another) where less might be more.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
There is also the additional complicating factor that 100% of existing Labour voters will not necessarily be obedient and back, for example, a Liberal Democrat candidate where they live, if Labour withdraws its own candidate and invites them to back the representative of the pact instead. A non-negligible slice of Labour support will go Tory either to extend the middle finger towards the party that has abandoned them, or because they don't actually want PR.
What will happen when the Conservatives become unpopular is people will start looking for alternatives. This will begin initially as a "protest" vote so the LDs, Greens, Residents (in local elections) and Independents will be the beneficiaries.
The "protest" vote returns to the Conservatives at a GE but at local elections, Councillors are lost and Councils lost.
Eventually, there will be a growing desire to look for an alternative Government but to achieve that, to replace Conservative MPs with non-Conservative MPs, the electorate in each seat will need to work out which Party is the one most likely to achieve that. Local campaigning and Council strength will be the tools to help inform that decision and it will vary hugely.
@AllieHBNews
Friday’s Daily MAIL: “Don’t Steal Our Summer” #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1398023970805387270
There is quite a large difference between a virus escaping from a lab because they were doing risky bat coronavirus research banned in some countries - maybe research that involved deliberately making the virus NASTIER - and a virus that accidentally leapt from a civet cat to a shopper in a market.
The latter could happen in many places around the world, the former could only really happen in the only lab in the world doing dangerous novel bat coronavirus gain-of-function research, in Wuhan, China
Not a snowballs chance in hell though that the UK has a high death total (let alone death rate) than Italy. The UK has 119,320 deaths by end of April, Italy has 116,410 deaths by the end of January. Nobody could believe fewer than 3k deaths have occurred in February, March and April in Italy.
The difference is that Britain is much better at identifying those who have died, unlike Italy.
But it is worth remembering that other - very similar - viruses such as SARS and MERS made it across to humans without needing to go via a lab. It is also worth remembering that pretty much every piece promoting this theory (including the one you posted most recently) makes a really big thing about the fact that we haven't found the exact animal host, when we very rarely do find exact animal hosts for diseases. We've never found the host for SARS, HIV/AIDS, or Ebola for example.
https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak
He seems to lean (but not 100%) towards the natural origins vs lab leak theory.
At the moment all we have is circumstantial evidence. And the circumstantial evidence is very largely in favour of lab-leak. Occam's Razor
You didn't know that, did you
'New data from Public Health England(PHE) released yesterday found that the transfer of patients with covid from hospital to care homes resulted in 286 deaths, 96 outbreaks in care homes were related to this problem - about 1.6% of all care home outbreaks'
This would confirm Jenny Harries comments today that the release of patients to care homes was a much smaller issue than the introduction of covid into care homes by staff and visitors
I would be surprised if most posters are not themselves surprised how low this figure is
... yet more **** from LeadronicT!
If we are all being “surveilled” by these aliens, maybe this is their disease?
"But there is a clear and verified sequence of events that strongly suggests that this pandemic, which has caused more than 168 million cases and more than 3.4 million deaths worldwide, may well have originated from viruses carried in bats in an abandoned mine that then passed through a Chinese research facility before spreading out of control among the people of Wuhan."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/the-considerable-if-circumstantial-evidence-of-a-wuhan-lab-leak/
I said for a while that staff going in and out (which they have to do) would be by far the greater risk.
There'll be an awful lot of people all over the country who'll be furious if restrictions are allowed to drag on for months to, in effect, save the lives of a few anti-vaxxers. Moreover, such a decision would almost be bound to acquire an unwanted and damaging racial dimension.
Either they go ahead and let us all out on schedule, or they let most of us out and bring back localised restrictions in the most afflicted areas (which is only, after all, what Sturgeon has done to Glasgow.) I wouldn't like to bet which option will come to pass.
.
Even the Guardian is
He's the guy who coordinated a letter to the Lancet in March 2020 saying def natural origin, and anyone who disagrees with us is a wanker, without declaring any interest.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
So he's a duplicitous creep.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2021/05/27/henry-slade-exclusive-not-going-have-covid-vaccine-dont-agree/
"In light of the controversy and ahead of the publication of their full report, three members of the WHO mission, virologist Marion Koopmans, ZOOLOGIST PETER DASZAK and consultant clinical epidemiologist and senior medical adviser at Public Health England, John Watson, spoke about their experiences as part of an event hosted by international affairs think tank Chatham House"
Hello, let me introduce you to Gloucester's very own specialist Underground Forensic Detective, Doctor Frederick C West
https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/the-mission-unearthing-the-origins-covid-19
Are they really saying that only 1% of those deaths was caused by the transfer of patients back from hospitals?
But Jenny Harries did say today it was carers and visitors who were the principal cause of transmissions
I am not saying they should postpone and don't believe they will but those at risk if this uptick continues are more than just those who have refused.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYDL_RK--w&t=5s
"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily". Says the man who now states that it's impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to come from the lab."
This apparently dates from December 2019. Quite something
But there's little evidence that under 30s are at serious risk and people can choose to be more cautious if they wish to be at this point. Certainly I'd want advice to say anyone able to be working from home should be able to continue to do so until they're fully vaccinated.
But then the Lancet just swallowed the Russian Sputnik V "research" unquestioningly showing it was great and giving it credibility, despite the data behind it being seemingly unverified and dodgy.
Will younger unvaccinated people be allowed to say, no thanks, I am not coming back to work until I am jabbed? Or will they be allowed to insist that their employers maintain the social distancing and other precautions after 21st June until everyone who wants a jab has been given one?
It seems from the current language that they are not going to be given those choices. In which case saying "people can choose to be more cautious if they wish" is not a reasonable reflection of reality.
IMHO that’s not the same as the NIH funding work in WVI (although the money came from them) because they don’t have direct responsibility
It’s even better than that: it’s brilliant news. By my calcs, Hancock’s statistic (10% of people in hospital have had 2 doses of vaccine) implies the vaccine is having at least a 95% protective effect – and probably more like 98%, or maybe even higher. Let me explain… 1/n
Good thread…
(Is that the one without the 28-day cutoff?)
"The lab leak theory “got jumbled up together with some of the more crazy aspects of Trump, and scientists recoiled against that and went in favor of the theory that COVID-19 had emerged out of a natural process versus a lab escape,” J. Stephen Morrison, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Global Health Policy Center, told NPR’s “Up First.”"
https://dailycaller.com/2021/05/27/lab-leak-theory-suppressed-researcher-scientists-trump/
Those two sentences and a vague understanding of how science works should be enough to ensure that we reopen the country and society adapts in a timely manner.
If it doesn't, I will be furious.
No compulsion by law, but a nudge to employers as well as public pressure to be reasonable and that people should keep in mind that as we get back to normal we need to give considerations to those waiting for their vaccines.
Characteristically excellent work from James, calculating the level of vaccine efficacy against B.1.617.2 that is implied by the vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed composition of hospitalised cases announced by Matt Hancock earlier
It's especially galling given that I'm likely going to have to move out in order to not endanger a close family member whose immune system will be going down the drain due to medical treatment, despite having proved perfectly well that I am a good employee when working from home.
https://youtu.be/gN35Ha1sIt8?t=510
Starts about 8:30 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceXgMZv4Uwg
It is like PB in video form (or it might be – I've not watched it yet).
This bullshit all has to stop at some point. If the Covid death rate is ground down as low as it's likely to get (given that almost no-one is still banging the Zero Covid tambourine, and it's therefore generally accepted that we are going to have to live with it as an endemic disease,) and we also have a reasonable degree of confidence that getting rid of these remaining countermeasures will not lead to a major resurgence of serious illness and death, then that's the time to burn the security blanket and get on with a normal life.
Personally I reckon foreign travel restrictions will be around for a while, and masks may survive on public transport and in clinical settings, but I'm expecting all the rest of the rules to go in the dustbin next month. We ought not to be expected to spend half our lives walking around in gags, and having to decide which friends we can and cannot have dinner with, indefinitely.
Or, to put it another way, how is a socially-distanced, mask-wearing nightclub meant to operate? Will there be wardens patrolling the dancefloor to keep non-household groups two metres apart and watch out for illicit snogging? I mean, honestly!