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.
Absolutely. The biggest advocates of rules seem to be those whom they don't affect.
Lots of drivers want those on public transport to be wearing masks. Lots of people who don't go to the pubs very often wanted covid passports.
It is interesting seeing how many Brits became pettifogging little dictators about rules, twitching their curtains and tut tutting on those who made (or were forced to make) different choices to them. It really drove me mad.
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.
I think the IFR for the 25-29 age group is up to about 0.06% from the Nature paper. So that is 6 deaths from every 10,000 infections. A million infections in that age group could lead to 600 deaths.
It's not a high number in the context of the pandemic as a whole, but given that death is pretty rare for that age group anyway, that's a lot of individual tragedy for a very low level of risk.
Would I delay the June 21st date if I was in charge? Well, no, but I don't think I would be so dismissive of the residual 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.
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!
Yes. But that may mean reduced capacity. To which nightclubs are already limited. Whether that counts as "legal restrictions' remains to be seen.
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!
Have the results of all the trials been publicised? Not as far as I know. I suspect the fact that we haven't heard means they were in fact excellent and pointed to no need to keep any rules.
Your reminder that, for a year, Facebook actually TOOK DOWN posts that merely referenced the idea the virus came from a lab
"San Francisco Chronicle @sfchronicle · 4h Facebook announced a policy change on Wednesday, saying it would no longer remove claims that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak."
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.
I think the IFR for the 25-29 age group is up to about 0.06% from the Nature paper. So that is 6 deaths from every 10,000 infections. A million infections in that age group could lead to 600 deaths.
It's not a high number in the context of the pandemic as a whole, but given that death is pretty rare for that age group anyway, that's a lot of individual tragedy for a very low level of risk.
Would I delay the June 21st date if I was in charge? Well, no, but I don't think I would be so dismissive of the residual risk.
Hang on, though. An awful lot of under 30s have been vaccinated.
In fact, the most vulnerable (and those living with the most vulnerable). That is likely to drive the (already low) post lifting IFR in under 30s down massively.
I see Bashar al-Assad has won re-election with 95% percent of the vote. Some may call that implausible, that no being, human or divine, would ever get that much, but he went as low as 92% last time, so it's clearly real.
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!
Though going to a nightclub, music festival or even large wedding is voluntary.
I see no sign of my hospital ending masks and social distancing in 3 weeks. Indeed I have raised this with management as SD is a major drag on productivity.
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.
I think the IFR for the 25-29 age group is up to about 0.06% from the Nature paper. So that is 6 deaths from every 10,000 infections. A million infections in that age group could lead to 600 deaths.
It's not a high number in the context of the pandemic as a whole, but given that death is pretty rare for that age group anyway, that's a lot of individual tragedy for a very low level of risk.
Would I delay the June 21st date if I was in charge? Well, no, but I don't think I would be so dismissive of the residual risk.
Who was being dismissive? This is part of the problem with this whole debate. I was stating a fact - a correct fact - and you accused me of being dismissive. I was merely pointing out the risk level, which is on any reasonable metric very low.
Your reminder that, for a year, Facebook actually TOOK DOWN posts that merely referenced the idea the virus came from a lab
"San Francisco Chronicle @sfchronicle · 4h Facebook announced a policy change on Wednesday, saying it would no longer remove claims that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak."
Meanwhile local radio star Lisa Shaw died of an AZ induced blood clot. Which means I am in the ironic position of being closer to knowing (she was a good mate of several close friends) someone who died of the vaccine rather than of Covid.
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
You have to wonder if some sections of the media want to talk us into fearfulness..again...
The news overall is good. Death & hospitalisations nationally are staying low despite cases rising a bit and its clear vaccination works, we just got to keep going with it and get as many vaccinated as possible.
On the Wuhan business, the story hasnt actually changed, its the fact that the messengers are changing. I mentioned months ago on here about what was going on at Wuhan. The problem it had was shit bio security for a BSL4 and occasionally hoking about with research that they didnt need to be doing.
A retrospective look at imagery intellgence showed something up many weeks before we even had the 'its not transmissble between humans' statement out of China. And remember, that was an official line for a short period. The US has somewhat deeper intelligence which we have had a glimpse of. Its remarkably precise that three researchers sought hospital treatement for illness, not a number, not a few..three. The intelligence take knew who and when and when they went to hospital. Apparently, though, they dont know what for...
What the review ordered by Biden brings about is not just an assessment of what they have of note already but also a re-look at raw feeds
Your reminder that, for a year, Facebook actually TOOK DOWN posts that merely referenced the idea the virus came from a lab
"San Francisco Chronicle @sfchronicle · 4h Facebook announced a policy change on Wednesday, saying it would no longer remove claims that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak."
Big tech have not had a good pandemic. Actually, they have, in a limited way. They've made several metric fucktonnes of money. But they have massively overstepped the mark in terms of restricting what can be said on their platforms. Twitter, Google, Facebook - it's become apparent that the theoretcial arbitrary power they yield is very much more than just theroetical. Andthat their judgement is pretty patchy.
I see Bashar al-Assad has won re-election with 95% percent of the vote. Some may call that implausible, that no being, human or divine, would ever get that much, but he went as low as 92% last time, so it's clearly real.
Given that on current trends Mr Houchen is going win 95% of the vote in 2025 in NE England, Mr al-Assad's 95% of the vote is looking rather plausible
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.
Absolutely. The biggest advocates of rules seem to be those whom they don't affect.
Lots of drivers want those on public transport to be wearing masks. Lots of people who don't go to the pubs very often wanted covid passports.
It is interesting seeing how many Brits became pettifogging little dictators about rules, twitching their curtains and tut tutting on those who made (or were forced to make) different choices to them. It really drove me mad.
Perhaps you were really driving yourself mad? How could you tell that the people involved were drivers/no pub goers?
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.
I think the IFR for the 25-29 age group is up to about 0.06% from the Nature paper. So that is 6 deaths from every 10,000 infections. A million infections in that age group could lead to 600 deaths.
It's not a high number in the context of the pandemic as a whole, but given that death is pretty rare for that age group anyway, that's a lot of individual tragedy for a very low level of risk.
Would I delay the June 21st date if I was in charge? Well, no, but I don't think I would be so dismissive of the residual risk.
Who was being dismissive? This is part of the problem with this whole debate. I was stating a fact - a correct fact - and you accused me of being dismissive. I was merely pointing out the risk level, which is on any reasonable metric very low.
Also worth adding that - yet again, this is now common on PB and I bore myself correcting it - you have failed to stratify your data by underlying health conditions. So your 0.06% is likely to be much lower. Remember that twentysomethings with UHC have already been vaccinated…
Your reminder that, for a year, Facebook actually TOOK DOWN posts that merely referenced the idea the virus came from a lab
"San Francisco Chronicle @sfchronicle · 4h Facebook announced a policy change on Wednesday, saying it would no longer remove claims that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak."
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.
I agree with you about reopening. But that does not mean that those who have not yet been jabbed should be compelled to return to work or, if they have been working, to do so with all protections removed. As has already been noted on this thread that is exactly what some employers are insisting on.
You have to wonder if some sections of the media want to talk us into fearfulness..again...
The news overall is good. Death & hospitalisations nationally are staying low despite cases rising a bit and its clear vaccination works, we just got to keep going with it and get as many vaccinated as possible.
On the Wuhan business, the story hasnt actually changed, its the fact that the messengers are changing. I mentioned months ago on here about what was going on at Wuhan. The problem it had was shit bio security for a BSL4 and occasionally hoking about with research that they didnt need to be doing.
A retrospective look at imagery intellgence showed something up many weeks before we even had the 'its not transmissble between humans' statement out of China. And remember, that was an official line for a short period. The US has somewhat deeper intelligence which we have had a glimpse of. Its remarkably precise that three researchers sought hospital treatement for illness, not a number, not a few..three. The intelligence take knew who and when and when they went to hospital. Apparently, though, they dont know what for...
What the review ordered by Biden brings about is not just an assessment of what they have of note already but also a re-look at raw feeds
Another little fact about the virus, and the lab, that I did not know
"The lab that has been assiduously and energetically collecting coronaviruses from horseshoe bats for more than a decade, gathering a far larger collection of samples and genetic sequences than any other lab anywhere in the world, just happens to be in Wuhan, as part of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Run by Dr Shi Zhengli, it boasted in 2019 of having at least 100 different Sars-like viruses in its database.
"We cannot check these samples because the database went offline on 12 September 2019, just before the pandemic began, and Dr Shi persistently refuses to reopen it, arguing that it’s been subject to ‘hacking attempts’. Right… in September 2019? And there’s no other way to show the data? Dr Daszak says he knows what is in the database and that it is of no relevance, which is why he has not asked his friend Dr Shi to share it. Right."
I am sure it is explained better in the body of the article but that is a weird headline link. Taken at face value it says that there are now 4 billion more people smoking than exist in the world. Must be all those aliens Leon keeps telling us about.
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
Which part? I'm fairly sure it is. You used to get polite queues of junkies waiting for it to open. I expect they needed a prescription or something to say they were heroin addicts and therefore needed heroin. I think this happened up until the late 60s or early 70s.
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.
I think the IFR for the 25-29 age group is up to about 0.06% from the Nature paper. So that is 6 deaths from every 10,000 infections. A million infections in that age group could lead to 600 deaths.
It's not a high number in the context of the pandemic as a whole, but given that death is pretty rare for that age group anyway, that's a lot of individual tragedy for a very low level of risk.
Would I delay the June 21st date if I was in charge? Well, no, but I don't think I would be so dismissive of the residual risk.
According to the up-to-date NHS England stats, 647 people under the age of 40 have died in hospitals in England of Covid since the start of the pandemic. Scaling that up to the whole UK, and assuming a negligible number of Covid deaths outside of hospital in patients that young, would give us a rough estimate of about 750 Covid deaths amongst all the under 40s since the start of the pandemic in the UK.
That's about 12 per week, of which we can probably assume the majority were over 30, which means that the mean Covid death rate for under 30s in the UK since the pandemic started will be running at under one per day. Moreover, for most of the duration of the pandemic, there were no vaccinations; since January, every young person in the shielding or various other clinically vulnerable categories will have been offered jabs, which should cut their risk of death by anything up to about 90% if they catch this infernal Plague. The remaining unvaccinated young will almost all be those with no underlying health conditions who were at truly minuscule risk of kicking the bucket from Covid even before vaccination began.
Thus, since the start of April 2021, 6 people aged 20-39 and nobody at all under 20 has died of Covid in an English hospital. Six deaths is significantly lower than the number of people you would expect to die from falling off a ladder over the same period, and is broadly comparable with the expected rate of mortality likely to be caused by drowning in a bathtub.
The remaining risk of death to the young from this illness is as near to zero as makes no difference.
Only in absolute terms, not relative to total population.
I'm surprised anyone can still afford it. I think in my university days a bottle of wine cost two packets of fans, nowadays a packet of fags buys two bottles of wine.
I am sure it is explained better in the body of the article but that is a weird headline link. Taken at face value it says that there are now 4 billion more people smoking than exist in the world. Must be all those aliens Leon keeps telling us about.
Lol. It's 1.1 billion of course. Not the first time a Guardian headline has completely missed the point...
I am sure it is explained better in the body of the article but that is a weird headline link. Taken at face value it says that there are now 4 billion more people smoking than exist in the world. Must be all those aliens Leon keeps telling us about.
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!
Though going to a nightclub, music festival or even large wedding is voluntary.
I see no sign of my hospital ending masks and social distancing in 3 weeks. Indeed I have raised this with management as SD is a major drag on productivity.
That doesn't surprise me. As I've said elsewhere, if I had to bet on what exactly the state of play would be post-June 21st then I would anticipate a mass scrapping of most restrictions, but for some residual incumbrances to survive on public transport and in clinical settings - as well as the continuation of international travel restrictions, and the test, trace and isolate system.
Some more cautious employers may also be reluctant to dispense with the security blanket. I suspect that we may be lumbered with masks in corridors and temperature checks on entry at my workplace for some time yet.
I am sure it is explained better in the body of the article but that is a weird headline link. Taken at face value it says that there are now 4 billion more people smoking than exist in the world. Must be all those aliens Leon keeps telling us about.
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
Which part? I'm fairly sure it is. You used to get polite queues of junkies waiting for it to open. I expect they needed a prescription or something to say they were heroin addicts and therefore needed heroin. I think this happened up until the late 60s or early 70s.
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
Which part? I'm fairly sure it is. You used to get polite queues of junkies waiting for it to open. I expect they needed a prescription or something to say they were heroin addicts and therefore needed heroin. I think this happened up until the late 60s or early 70s.
Only in absolute terms, not relative to total population.
I'm surprised anyone can still afford it. I think in my university days a bottle of wine cost two packets of fans, nowadays a packet of fags buys two bottles of wine.
Only in absolute terms, not relative to total population.
I'm surprised anyone can still afford it. I think in my university days a bottle of wine cost two packets of fans, nowadays a packet of fags buys two bottles of wine.
Tangentially, but that reminds me of a similar change; when I was at uni, typically, you could go to around three gigs for the cost of an album. Now, going to a gig costs about 4-8 times as much as an album. Thankfully for me I'm now 46 with three young kids and opportunities to get out and see live music are few and far between, while opportunities to sit on my arse listening to an album are plentiful. But sad for today's youth. Or maybe happy for today's youth that albums are so cheap, or, in practice, free. I'm not really sure which.
I see Bashar al-Assad has won re-election with 95% percent of the vote. Some may call that implausible, that no being, human or divine, would ever get that much, but he went as low as 92% last time, so it's clearly real.
I believe 95% of the vote is now the new threshold that BJ will require before he will grant indyref II.
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…
Can you provide a link to this thread?
The logic is fairly simple (I assume):
Half of people (roughly) have been vaccinated, but they are by far the most vulnerable half. If unprotected they would have been much more likely to end up in hospital than the young people who have not been vaccinated at all yet.
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
Which part? I'm fairly sure it is. You used to get polite queues of junkies waiting for it to open. I expect they needed a prescription or something to say they were heroin addicts and therefore needed heroin. I think this happened up until the late 60s or early 70s.
Yes, they were registered addicts getting their prescribed dose of skag. The average non-registered punter couldn't wander into Boots and "buy heroin"
As I say, it was probably a better system than the one we have now
Fair enough. I forget exactly what point I was making now. Possibly that legalising drug use under circumstances isn't an extreme position? Presumably that was relevant at some point in the conversation. I'm basically only staying up now to put off the moment when I have to go and find all the cats and put themthrough in their half of the house then take my youngest daughter for a nocturnal wee. So then. Night all.
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
Which part? I'm fairly sure it is. You used to get polite queues of junkies waiting for it to open. I expect they needed a prescription or something to say they were heroin addicts and therefore needed heroin. I think this happened up until the late 60s or early 70s.
Yes, they were registered addicts getting their prescribed dose of skag. The average non-registered punter couldn't wander into Boots and "buy heroin"
As I say, it was probably a better system than the one we have now
Fair enough. I forget exactly what point I was making now. Possibly that legalising drug use under circumstances isn't an extreme position? Presumably that was relevant at some point in the conversation. I'm basically only staying up now to put off the moment when I have to go and find all the cats and put themthrough in their half of the house then take my youngest daughter for a nocturnal wee. So then. Night all.
Only in absolute terms, not relative to total population.
I'm surprised anyone can still afford it. I think in my university days a bottle of wine cost two packets of fans, nowadays a packet of fags buys two bottles of wine.
That's UK tax. In many countries they are much cheaper. And indeed a status symbol in some.
Only in absolute terms, not relative to total population.
I'm surprised anyone can still afford it. I think in my university days a bottle of wine cost two packets of fans, nowadays a packet of fags buys two bottles of wine.
Only in absolute terms, not relative to total population.
I'm surprised anyone can still afford it. I think in my university days a bottle of wine cost two packets of fans, nowadays a packet of fags buys two bottles of wine.
Tangentially, but that reminds me of a similar change; when I was at uni, typically, you could go to around three gigs for the cost of an album. Now, going to a gig costs about 4-8 times as much as an album. Thankfully for me I'm now 46 with three young kids and opportunities to get out and see live music are few and far between, while opportunities to sit on my arse listening to an album are plentiful. But sad for today's youth. Or maybe happy for today's youth that albums are so cheap, or, in practice, free. I'm not really sure which.
Was £4 to watch Spurs in my first year at Uni. Three years later when I lived just off Tottenham High Road was £15 for a League Cup tie with Hartlepool. I harrumphed in outrage and never crossed the threshold on principle. That was the Cup winning mid table side of Gascoigne and Lineker.
Oh wow. Given how extreme Potts is, likely means that the softer side of Unionism is leaving them. Good for the UUP? If so, good for NI, and Unionism.
Opposition to the protocol has given unionism a newfound non-sectarian raison d'etre. There's now something to aim for other than clinging on to the status quo.
40% of the world's population lives in China or India and I suppose more people can afford to buy them now than previously.
IIRC 20 cigarettes can be legally bought in Indonesia for less than 50p a packet.....it won't be a fancy western brand (but is probably still owned by a multinational)
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…
Can you provide a link to this thread?
Interesting bit of trivia, James Ward was the Lib Dem candidate for Wainbody. It is a ward in Coventry the Conservatives have never lost.
40% of the world's population lives in China or India and I suppose more people can afford to buy them now than previously.
IIRC 20 cigarettes can be legally bought in Indonesia for less than 50p a packet.....it won't be a fancy western brand (but is probably still owned by a multinational)
It must be questionable whether western companies should be involved in this business.
You have to wonder if some sections of the media want to talk us into fearfulness..again...
The news overall is good. Death & hospitalisations nationally are staying low despite cases rising a bit and its clear vaccination works, we just got to keep going with it and get as many vaccinated as possible.
On the Wuhan business, the story hasnt actually changed, its the fact that the messengers are changing. I mentioned months ago on here about what was going on at Wuhan. The problem it had was shit bio security for a BSL4 and occasionally hoking about with research that they didnt need to be doing.
A retrospective look at imagery intellgence showed something up many weeks before we even had the 'its not transmissble between humans' statement out of China. And remember, that was an official line for a short period. The US has somewhat deeper intelligence which we have had a glimpse of. Its remarkably precise that three researchers sought hospital treatement for illness, not a number, not a few..three. The intelligence take knew who and when and when they went to hospital. Apparently, though, they dont know what for...
What the review ordered by Biden brings about is not just an assessment of what they have of note already but also a re-look at raw feeds
I wonder whether the Cummings performance has brought closer or put back the possible date for the Covid Inquiry? BJ must be thinking about a cabinet reshuffle (normally just before Summer recess?)
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing: -their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄 - “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is threatening to block a cruise line from resuming service if it requires passengers to be vaccinated. But the law DeSantis signed in Florida would impose a fine of $5,000 per person required to show proof of vaccination, and the governor says he will not back down.
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing: -their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄 - “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is threatening to block a cruise line from resuming service if it requires passengers to be vaccinated. But the law DeSantis signed in Florida would impose a fine of $5,000 per person required to show proof of vaccination, and the governor says he will not back down.
Meanwhile local radio star Lisa Shaw died of an AZ induced blood clot. Which means I am in the ironic position of being closer to knowing (she was a good mate of several close friends) someone who died of the vaccine rather than of Covid.
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing: -their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄 - “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
I think we are going to see a summer of entitled Brits turning up in places not realising that strict local rules about quarantine are actually being enforced..... not to mention causing chaos when 000s return from their Euro break thinking they can just waltz back in without a test booked etc...
I wonder whether the Cummings performance has brought closer or put back the possible date for the Covid Inquiry? BJ must be thinking about a cabinet reshuffle (normally just before Summer recess?)
It'll certainly be difficult to justify stalling until next Spring if it's deemed safe enough to dump most of the remaining restrictions next month. The main justification for putting off an enquiry is to allow officials to concentrate on fighting the pandemic rather than collating evidence - a much harder case to make if the disease is effectively declared to be under control.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is threatening to block a cruise line from resuming service if it requires passengers to be vaccinated. But the law DeSantis signed in Florida would impose a fine of $5,000 per person required to show proof of vaccination, and the governor says he will not back down.
A bit like the EU, he should be wary of tearing up the rule book to impose his own stupid counter factual reality. It may come back to bite Florida in the arse.
Labour would almost certainly win on the evidence of the Assembly elections, so I think the Tories will posture but not actually do anything.
An unflattering contrast to Starmer, who brought heavy and successful pressure to bear on Mike Hill to resign even though it caused him a great deal of political trouble.
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing: -their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄 - “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is threatening to block a cruise line from resuming service if it requires passengers to be vaccinated. But the law DeSantis signed in Florida would impose a fine of $5,000 per person required to show proof of vaccination, and the governor says he will not back down.
A bit like the EU, he should be wary of tearing up the rule book to impose his own stupid counter factual reality. It may come back to bite Florida in the arse.
I suspect none of those would be great embarkation points. Why not start in the Bahamas?
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing: -their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄 - “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing: -their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄 - “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is threatening to block a cruise line from resuming service if it requires passengers to be vaccinated. But the law DeSantis signed in Florida would impose a fine of $5,000 per person required to show proof of vaccination, and the governor says he will not back down.
A bit like the EU, he should be wary of tearing up the rule book to impose his own stupid counter factual reality. It may come back to bite Florida in the arse.
I suspect none of those would be great embarkation points. Why not start in the Bahamas?
Because Americans are fiercely patriotic and want to embark in the States?
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing: -their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄 - “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
I have one, which I fly at music festivals. It is useful to have a distinct flag in order to find your tent, though I also fly Oliver Cromwells Commonwealth Flag
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing: -their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄 - “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
I have one, which I fly at music festivals. It is useful to have a distinct flag in order to find your tent, though I also fly Oliver Cromwells Commonwealth Flag
Good morning everyone. Has summer actually come? Dr F, didn't know there was a Cromwellian Commonwealth flag. One or two people round here fly the Essex seaxes flag.
Meanwhile local radio star Lisa Shaw died of an AZ induced blood clot. Which means I am in the ironic position of being closer to knowing (she was a good mate of several close friends) someone who died of the vaccine rather than of Covid.
You don't "know" it was AZ induced.
The Coroner is investigating, so we should find out in time:
The type of blood clots being associated with the vaccine is quite distinctive, being associated with a number of other blood abnormalities. There is some similarity to the Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia syndrome.
We are seeing numbers of rather odd vascular events, often a month or two post vaccine or post covid, mostly the latter, but hard to pin down convincing proof as usually the blood tests are back to normal. We have always seen the odd peculiar clot, so could just be coincidence, but sometimes the timeframe is highly suspicious in people with no other risk factors.
Good morning everyone. Has summer actually come? Dr F, didn't know there was a Cromwellian Commonwealth flag. One or two people round here fly the Essex seaxes flag.
Yes, it is rather good, it preceeds the Union Flag.
Good morning everyone. Has summer actually come? Dr F, didn't know there was a Cromwellian Commonwealth flag. One or two people round here fly the Essex seaxes flag.
Now we’ve braved those snowstorms, it’s full ahead to summer. Which fully arrives Sunday, by the look of it, and might actually stick around, at least for a week or two....
Good morning everyone. Has summer actually come? Dr F, didn't know there was a Cromwellian Commonwealth flag. One or two people round here fly the Essex seaxes flag.
Now we’ve braved those snowstorms, it’s full ahead to summer. Which fully arrives Sunday, by the look of it, and might actually stick around, at least for a week or two....
It is still being investigated by the Charity Commission. I wouldn't rush to the conclusion yet that Camila and plans have been the paragons of proper behaviour.
Does anyone know the background to this case? I know she has mentioned PTSD as the reason for taking time off but I can't she has given much in the way of details.
Forgive me if i am somewhat sceptical about the AZ vaccine . Has the government gone too far down the road of backing it to now back away from it? If (as it seems very likely) a BBC young presenter can die from it isn't it worth thinking how many BBC presenters are there (not huge numbers) and conclude that the risk of dying from it is not "less than 1 in a 100,000) but greater? I think we trust the government too much , Iraq lies , wartime secrets (perhaps necessary at the time of course) show the government does lie when it thinks it needs to - Is it doing it here? Also think of the scandals like the Post Office convictions ? We trust authority too much
Anyway I will be literally playing Russian roulette next week when i get my second jab of AZ. Odds may be better than 5 in 6 but not sure they are 99999 in 100000
Forgive me if i am somewhat sceptical about the AZ vaccine . Has the government gone too far down the road of backing it to now back away from it? If (as it seems very likely) a BBC young presenter can die from it isn't it worth thinking how many BBC presenters are there (not huge numbers) and conclude that the risk of dying from it is not "less than 1 in a 100,000) but greater? I think we trust the government too much , Iraq lies , wartime secrets (perhaps necessary at the time of course) show the government does lie when it thinks it needs to - Is it doing it here? Also think of the scandals like the Post Office convictions ? We trust authority too much
Anyway I will be literally playing Russian roulette next week when i get my second jab of AZ. Odds may be better than 5 in 6 but not sure they are 99999 in 100000
So if someone dies who has a rare profession, the odds are higher still? Completely flawed logic.
Had the PM succumbed to covid, since there's only one Prime Minister that would have established a death rate of 100% ???
I think a statistics refresh might be in order here!
Good morning everyone. Has summer actually come? Dr F, didn't know there was a Cromwellian Commonwealth flag. One or two people round here fly the Essex seaxes flag.
Now we’ve braved those snowstorms, it’s full ahead to summer. Which fully arrives Sunday, by the look of it, and might actually stick around, at least for a week or two....
Was there actually any snow anywhere?
No. In Britain, at least.
Had there been, last night's thread would have consisted of non-stop posts crowing about his superforecasting prowess from LeadronicT
As it is, doubtless he was "merely relaying concerns"....
Forgive me if i am somewhat sceptical about the AZ vaccine . Has the government gone too far down the road of backing it to now back away from it? If (as it seems very likely) a BBC young presenter can die from it isn't it worth thinking how many BBC presenters are there (not huge numbers) and conclude that the risk of dying from it is not "less than 1 in a 100,000) but greater? I think we trust the government too much , Iraq lies , wartime secrets (perhaps necessary at the time of course) show the government does lie when it thinks it needs to - Is it doing it here? Also think of the scandals like the Post Office convictions ? We trust authority too much
Anyway I will be literally playing Russian roulette next week when i get my second jab of AZ. Odds may be better than 5 in 6 but not sure they are 99999 in 100000
That's flawed logic and confirmation bias. Just because there's 1 BBC presenter doesn't make the true odds 1 in 100,000 since BBC presenters aren't the proper denominator. You're only looking at BBC presenters as it happened to one of them, but you're not looking at all the categories where it is 0 out of however many.
Its tragic, but the numbers are out there. From memory its about ~58 of these incidents, from ~35 million jabs which is about 1.5 per million jabs.
Does make me wonder now though given the low prevalence, I got a first AZ jab but am under-40 so the advice is not to take AZ now. So it makes me wonder if its possible to get Pfizer or another for the second jab instead of AZ?
It is still being investigated by the Charity Commission. I wouldn't rush to the conclusion yet that Camila and plans have been the paragons of proper behaviour.
It will be interesting to see, but the Trustees being exonerated and receiving costs is quite a pointer to the way it is going.
Forgive me if i am somewhat sceptical about the AZ vaccine . Has the government gone too far down the road of backing it to now back away from it? If (as it seems very likely) a BBC young presenter can die from it isn't it worth thinking how many BBC presenters are there (not huge numbers) and conclude that the risk of dying from it is not "less than 1 in a 100,000) but greater? I think we trust the government too much , Iraq lies , wartime secrets (perhaps necessary at the time of course) show the government does lie when it thinks it needs to - Is it doing it here? Also think of the scandals like the Post Office convictions ? We trust authority too much
Anyway I will be literally playing Russian roulette next week when i get my second jab of AZ. Odds may be better than 5 in 6 but not sure they are 99999 in 100000
That's flawed logic and confirmation bias. Just because there's 1 BBC presenter doesn't make the true odds 1 in 100,000 since BBC presenters aren't the proper denominator. You're only looking at BBC presenters as it happened to one of them, but you're not looking at all the categories where it is 0 out of however many.
Its tragic, but the numbers are out there. From memory its about ~58 of these incidents, from ~35 million jabs which is about 1.5 per million jabs.
Does make me wonder now though given the low prevalence, I got a first AZ jab but am under-40 so the advice is not to take AZ now. So it makes me wonder if its possible to get Pfizer or another for the second jab instead of AZ?
i appreciate its not exact science taking BBC presenters as a tribe (whats the collective term for them?) but it has to make people question the official line i think . Its not as if the government does not lie when it needs to . Didnt Churchill say the truth is the first casualty of war?
Forgive me if i am somewhat sceptical about the AZ vaccine . Has the government gone too far down the road of backing it to now back away from it? If (as it seems very likely) a BBC young presenter can die from it isn't it worth thinking how many BBC presenters are there (not huge numbers) and conclude that the risk of dying from it is not "less than 1 in a 100,000) but greater? I think we trust the government too much , Iraq lies , wartime secrets (perhaps necessary at the time of course) show the government does lie when it thinks it needs to - Is it doing it here? Also think of the scandals like the Post Office convictions ? We trust authority too much
Anyway I will be literally playing Russian roulette next week when i get my second jab of AZ. Odds may be better than 5 in 6 but not sure they are 99999 in 100000
That's flawed logic and confirmation bias. Just because there's 1 BBC presenter doesn't make the true odds 1 in 100,000 since BBC presenters aren't the proper denominator. You're only looking at BBC presenters as it happened to one of them, but you're not looking at all the categories where it is 0 out of however many.
Its tragic, but the numbers are out there. From memory its about ~58 of these incidents, from ~35 million jabs which is about 1.5 per million jabs.
Does make me wonder now though given the low prevalence, I got a first AZ jab but am under-40 so the advice is not to take AZ now. So it makes me wonder if its possible to get Pfizer or another for the second jab instead of AZ?
i appreciate its not exact science taking BBC presenters as a tribe (whats the collective term for them?) but it has to make people question the official line i think . Its not as if the government does not lie when it needs to . Didnt Churchill say the truth is the first casualty of war?
If they were lying the truth would out.
If it were 1/100,000 then from 35m jabs there'd need to not be ~58 deaths but ~350. I suspect some of the families of the ~300 extra people who'd died would raise a red flag if their deaths hadn't been registered.
Meanwhile local radio star Lisa Shaw died of an AZ induced blood clot. Which means I am in the ironic position of being closer to knowing (she was a good mate of several close friends) someone who died of the vaccine rather than of Covid.
You don't "know" it was AZ induced.
The Coroner is investigating, so we should find out in time:
The type of blood clots being associated with the vaccine is quite distinctive, being associated with a number of other blood abnormalities. There is some similarity to the Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia syndrome.
We are seeing numbers of rather odd vascular events, often a month or two post vaccine or post covid, mostly the latter, but hard to pin down convincing proof as usually the blood tests are back to normal. We have always seen the odd peculiar clot, so could just be coincidence, but sometimes the timeframe is highly suspicious in people with no other risk factors.
Yes quite possibly, but that's why I put know in inverted commas.
Forgive me if i am somewhat sceptical about the AZ vaccine . Has the government gone too far down the road of backing it to now back away from it? If (as it seems very likely) a BBC young presenter can die from it isn't it worth thinking how many BBC presenters are there (not huge numbers) and conclude that the risk of dying from it is not "less than 1 in a 100,000) but greater? I think we trust the government too much , Iraq lies , wartime secrets (perhaps necessary at the time of course) show the government does lie when it thinks it needs to - Is it doing it here? Also think of the scandals like the Post Office convictions ? We trust authority too much
Anyway I will be literally playing Russian roulette next week when i get my second jab of AZ. Odds may be better than 5 in 6 but not sure they are 99999 in 100000
So if someone dies who has a rare profession, the odds are higher still? Completely flawed logic.
Had the PM succumbed to covid, since there's only one Prime Minister that would have established a death rate of 100% ???
I think a statistics refresh might be in order here!
It's not a totally unreasonable approach to take, in the absence of good information and when there may be some doubt about the official account. I remember at the start of the pandemic when Iran was playing down the extent of the outbreak, the high proportion of MPs who got sick or died was a signal that there was something awry with the official story there. Having said that, I have had the AZ jab and will have my second in July without too many qualms. It's quite possible that the risks are a bit higher than officially stated, but still quite low and better than catching Covid.
Can you point me to a determination that the BBC presenter died of blood clots etc and that it was linked to the particular vaccine, rather than any other cause?
Serious question - without a medical verdict, or ideally an Inquest, it is a leaning tower of speculation.
"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
It is still being investigated by the Charity Commission. I wouldn't rush to the conclusion yet that Camila and plans have been the paragons of proper behaviour.
It will be interesting to see, but the Trustees being exonerated and receiving costs is quite a pointer to the way it is going.
It is not a charity that I have ever supported.
£6.4m of costs for the defence vs £400k for the prosecution seems unbalanced
Can you point me to a determination that the BBC presenter died of blood clots etc and that it was linked to the particular vaccine, rather than any other cause?
Serious question - without a medical verdict, or ideally an Inquest, it is a leaning tower of speculation.
Forgive me if i am somewhat sceptical about the AZ vaccine . Has the government gone too far down the road of backing it to now back away from it? If (as it seems very likely) a BBC young presenter can die from it isn't it worth thinking how many BBC presenters are there (not huge numbers) and conclude that the risk of dying from it is not "less than 1 in a 100,000) but greater? I think we trust the government too much , Iraq lies , wartime secrets (perhaps necessary at the time of course) show the government does lie when it thinks it needs to - Is it doing it here? Also think of the scandals like the Post Office convictions ? We trust authority too much
Anyway I will be literally playing Russian roulette next week when i get my second jab of AZ. Odds may be better than 5 in 6 but not sure they are 99999 in 100000
That's flawed logic and confirmation bias. Just because there's 1 BBC presenter doesn't make the true odds 1 in 100,000 since BBC presenters aren't the proper denominator. You're only looking at BBC presenters as it happened to one of them, but you're not looking at all the categories where it is 0 out of however many.
Its tragic, but the numbers are out there. From memory its about ~58 of these incidents, from ~35 million jabs which is about 1.5 per million jabs.
Does make me wonder now though given the low prevalence, I got a first AZ jab but am under-40 so the advice is not to take AZ now. So it makes me wonder if its possible to get Pfizer or another for the second jab instead of AZ?
i appreciate its not exact science taking BBC presenters as a tribe (whats the collective term for them?) but it has to make people question the official line i think . Its not as if the government does not lie when it needs to . Didnt Churchill say the truth is the first casualty of war?
If they were lying the truth would out.
If it were 1/100,000 then from 35m jabs there'd need to not be ~58 deaths but ~350. I suspect some of the families of the ~300 extra people who'd died would raise a red flag if their deaths hadn't been registered.
It does also ascribe to the UK Government a rather impressive amount of power worldwide, seeing as the analyses and extrapolations have been done by scientists in many countries.
I am sceptical that all of these scientists have such compliance with whatever Boris Johnson of the UK wants.
Does anyone know the background to this case? I know she has mentioned PTSD as the reason for taking time off but I can't she has given much in the way of details.
I gather that there was a specific traumatic episode, but the media are not giving details if they know them (and there's no reason why she should feel she has to give us details), and to be fair I think they're behaving responsibly in not doing so.
Comments
Lots of drivers want those on public transport to be wearing masks. Lots of people who don't go to the pubs very often wanted covid passports.
It is interesting seeing how many Brits became pettifogging little dictators about rules, twitching their curtains and tut tutting on those who made (or were forced to make) different choices to them. It really drove me mad.
It's not a high number in the context of the pandemic as a whole, but given that death is pretty rare for that age group anyway, that's a lot of individual tragedy for a very low level of risk.
Would I delay the June 21st date if I was in charge? Well, no, but I don't think I would be so dismissive of the residual risk.
To which nightclubs are already limited.
Whether that counts as "legal restrictions' remains to be seen.
"San Francisco Chronicle
@sfchronicle
·
4h
Facebook announced a policy change on Wednesday, saying it would no longer remove claims that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak."
https://twitter.com/sfchronicle/status/1397976502692614148?s=20
In fact, the most vulnerable (and those living with the most vulnerable). That is likely to drive the (already low) post lifting IFR in under 30s down massively.
I see no sign of my hospital ending masks and social distancing in 3 weeks. Indeed I have raised this with management as SD is a major drag on productivity.
Good thread.
The news overall is good. Death & hospitalisations nationally are staying low despite cases rising a bit and its clear vaccination works, we just got to keep going with it and get as many vaccinated as possible.
On the Wuhan business, the story hasnt actually changed, its the fact that the messengers are changing. I mentioned months ago on here about what was going on at Wuhan. The problem it had was shit bio security for a BSL4 and occasionally hoking about with research that they didnt need to be doing.
A retrospective look at imagery intellgence showed something up many weeks before we even had the 'its not transmissble between humans' statement out of China. And remember, that was an official line for a short period. The US has somewhat deeper intelligence which we have had a glimpse of. Its remarkably precise that three researchers sought hospital treatement for illness, not a number, not a few..three. The intelligence take knew who and when and when they went to hospital. Apparently, though, they dont know what for...
What the review ordered by Biden brings about is not just an assessment of what they have of note already but also a re-look at raw feeds
Actually, they have, in a limited way. They've made several metric fucktonnes of money.
But they have massively overstepped the mark in terms of restricting what can be said on their platforms.
Twitter, Google, Facebook - it's become apparent that the theoretcial arbitrary power they yield is very much more than just theroetical. Andthat their judgement is pretty patchy.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/27/number-of-smokers-has-reached-all-time-high-of-11-billion-study-finds
"The lab that has been assiduously and energetically collecting coronaviruses from horseshoe bats for more than a decade, gathering a far larger collection of samples and genetic sequences than any other lab anywhere in the world, just happens to be in Wuhan, as part of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Run by Dr Shi Zhengli, it boasted in 2019 of having at least 100 different Sars-like viruses in its database.
"We cannot check these samples because the database went offline on 12 September 2019, just before the pandemic began, and Dr Shi persistently refuses to reopen it, arguing that it’s been subject to ‘hacking attempts’. Right… in September 2019? And there’s no other way to show the data? Dr Daszak says he knows what is in the database and that it is of no relevance, which is why he has not asked his friend Dr Shi to share it. Right."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-covid-lab-leak-theory-is-looking-increasingly-plausible
In fact, look: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-man-who-loved-junkies-1538548.html
That's about 12 per week, of which we can probably assume the majority were over 30, which means that the mean Covid death rate for under 30s in the UK since the pandemic started will be running at under one per day. Moreover, for most of the duration of the pandemic, there were no vaccinations; since January, every young person in the shielding or various other clinically vulnerable categories will have been offered jabs, which should cut their risk of death by anything up to about 90% if they catch this infernal Plague. The remaining unvaccinated young will almost all be those with no underlying health conditions who were at truly minuscule risk of kicking the bucket from Covid even before vaccination began.
Thus, since the start of April 2021, 6 people aged 20-39 and nobody at all under 20 has died of Covid in an English hospital. Six deaths is significantly lower than the number of people you would expect to die from falling off a ladder over the same period, and is broadly comparable with the expected rate of mortality likely to be caused by drowning in a bathtub.
The remaining risk of death to the young from this illness is as near to zero as makes no difference.
I'm surprised anyone can still afford it. I think in my university days a bottle of wine cost two packets of fans, nowadays a packet of fags buys two bottles of wine.
Not the first time a Guardian headline has completely missed the point...
Some more cautious employers may also be reluctant to dispense with the security blanket. I suspect that we may be lumbered with masks in corridors and temperature checks on entry at my workplace for some time yet.
As I say, it was probably a better system than the one we have now
Thankfully for me I'm now 46 with three young kids and opportunities to get out and see live music are few and far between, while opportunities to sit on my arse listening to an album are plentiful. But sad for today's youth. Or maybe happy for today's youth that albums are so cheap, or, in practice, free. I'm not really sure which.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26751155?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Half of people (roughly) have been vaccinated, but they are by far the most vulnerable half. If unprotected they would have been much more likely to end up in hospital than the young people who have not been vaccinated at all yet.
...a little bit of math...
95+% effective.
https://twitter.com/BraidenGB/status/1398049060481912833?s=20
So then. Night all.
Goodnight to you, and goodnight to PB
Three years later when I lived just off Tottenham High Road was £15 for a League Cup tie with Hartlepool.
I harrumphed in outrage and never crossed the threshold on principle.
That was the Cup winning mid table side of Gascoigne and Lineker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvGxsVlISrk
"Sadly"... I cant see Benedict Cumberbatch reprising his portrayal of DC (Brexit the Uncivil War) again for this one.
two Britons entering Indonesia refused to be quarantined, citing:
-their rights to go anywhere per “law of the nature” 🙄
- “law of the nature” has “higher hierarchy” than “man-made law”
both were deported straight back to the UK.
https://twitter.com/restyworo/status/1398123021458558978?s=21
Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is threatening to block a cruise line from resuming service if it requires passengers to be vaccinated. But the law DeSantis signed in Florida would impose a fine of $5,000 per person required to show proof of vaccination, and the governor says he will not back down.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ron-desantis-cruise-ships-unvaccinated-passengers-florida.html
WTF were they on?
(Except to choose who your customers are)
BBC News - Twitter: Social media giant lists new 'Blue' subscription service
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57264348
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-57267295
A bit like the EU, he should be wary of tearing up the rule book to impose his own stupid counter factual reality. It may come back to bite Florida in the arse.
An unflattering contrast to Starmer, who brought heavy and successful pressure to bear on Mike Hill to resign even though it caused him a great deal of political trouble.
https://en.tempo.co/read/1464467/soekarno-hatta-airport-police-nab-2-britons-dodging-quarantine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-57277286
Although Hancock and care homes still features, from the telegraph to the mirror
What would your suggestion be?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Leicestershire-Flag-5-x-3-FT-100-Polyester-With-Eyelets-Leicester-/353389663260?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286
I have one, which I fly at music festivals. It is useful to have a distinct flag in order to find your tent, though I also fly Oliver Cromwells Commonwealth Flag
One or two people round here fly the Essex seaxes flag.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-57267169.amp
The type of blood clots being associated with the vaccine is quite distinctive, being associated with a number of other blood abnormalities. There is some similarity to the Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia syndrome.
We are seeing numbers of rather odd vascular events, often a month or two post vaccine or post covid, mostly the latter, but hard to pin down convincing proof as usually the blood tests are back to normal. We have always seen the odd peculiar clot, so could just be coincidence, but sometimes the timeframe is highly suspicious in people with no other risk factors.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/28/ban-kids-company-trustees-cost-taxpayers-8m-camila-batmanghelidjh
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/27/war-ptsd-nadia-whittome-mp-diagnosis
I think we trust the government too much , Iraq lies , wartime secrets (perhaps necessary at the time of course) show the government does lie when it thinks it needs to - Is it doing it here? Also think of the scandals like the Post Office convictions ? We trust authority too much
Anyway I will be literally playing Russian roulette next week when i get my second jab of AZ. Odds may be better than 5 in 6 but not sure they are 99999 in 100000
Had the PM succumbed to covid, since there's only one Prime Minister that would have established a death rate of 100% ???
I think a statistics refresh might be in order here!
Had there been, last night's thread would have consisted of non-stop posts crowing about his superforecasting prowess from LeadronicT
As it is, doubtless he was "merely relaying concerns"....
Its tragic, but the numbers are out there. From memory its about ~58 of these incidents, from ~35 million jabs which is about 1.5 per million jabs.
Does make me wonder now though given the low prevalence, I got a first AZ jab but am under-40 so the advice is not to take AZ now. So it makes me wonder if its possible to get Pfizer or another for the second jab instead of AZ?
It is not a charity that I have ever supported.
If it were 1/100,000 then from 35m jabs there'd need to not be ~58 deaths but ~350. I suspect some of the families of the ~300 extra people who'd died would raise a red flag if their deaths hadn't been registered.
Serious question - without a medical verdict, or ideally an Inquest, it is a leaning tower of speculation.
That is batshit crazy story!
So perhaps it was the bats after all.
I am sceptical that all of these scientists have such compliance with whatever Boris Johnson of the UK wants.
This thread is unfit for office