I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
I think you would have more credibility with us all if you just admitted you are a right wing nutter that is scared of needles.
Perhaps he thinks vaccines are the work of Satan.
Again, just take a step back and think about it. Vaccines are a great idea; I've had both of mine. But I can perfectly understand someone who draws a line at the government telling them what to inject into their body ffs. What if @contrarian was a 29-year old pregnant woman? There would be the same abuse aimed at him (er, her) whereas there has been found to be a small but non-zero risk of the AZN vaccine for such people.
I really don't care whether Contrarian takes the vaccine. As long as there are few enough Contrarians that we can get to herd immunity and forget about all this, who cares? Even if there were enough to be a problem, it's their choice and ultimately, certainly once those who want to get vaccinated have got vaccinated we should open up and the likes of Contrarian would be able to take their chances without hiding behind herd immunity (and be kept away, in this short of herd-immunity world with cases still prevalent, from those unable to be vaccinated for genuine health reasons - might mean Contrarian getting sacked if a doctor, nurse or care worker).
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
So as little as possible means just about everything then?
It seems so. Short of injecting into his body a government-mandated substance. Not that.
...that while mandated by HM Government said substance(s) is(are) independently developed and declared safe and efficacious by numerous independent regulatory bodies all over the world.
So what? The government has told us to inject ourselves with something and some people think that crosses a line. For whatever reason. I can live with that. Very happy with it.
Well, indeed, it is good that people should have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if such a decision is monumentally dumb. It is also good that the rest of society should get maximum mileage out of taking the piss out of them for their stupidity.
It is, after all, a free country. Oh no wait....not yet...
When the Great Leader tells us it is, it is. We shall all be grateful to His Mighty Effulgence.
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
So you'd rather government policy was to achieve immunity to Covid by infection rather than by vaccination?
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
I think you would have more credibility with us all if you just admitted you are a right wing nutter that is scared of needles.
Perhaps he thinks vaccines are the work of Satan.
Again, just take a step back and think about it. Vaccines are a great idea; I've had both of mine. But I can perfectly understand someone who draws a line at the government telling them what to inject into their body ffs. What if @contrarian was a 29-year old pregnant woman? There would be the same abuse aimed at him (er, her) whereas there has been found to be a small but non-zero risk of the AZN vaccine for such people.
Again take a step further yourself. We know virus is an act of God. So logically why shouldn’t the virus beating thing not be the work of satan? After all, what did lucifer, Beelzebub and the others revolt against? “Got to do what God says.”
If you are looking for absolute truth from a political standpoint it is like trying to reason without objectivity, no one can escape some form of bias, that is the plan revealed here isn’t it?
Is it actually wrong there are people who disagree, hence you should get all worked up? Or is that just the beauty of it, the intelligence of it?
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
I think you would have more credibility with us all if you just admitted you are a right wing nutter that is scared of needles.
Perhaps he thinks vaccines are the work of Satan.
Again, just take a step back and think about it. Vaccines are a great idea; I've had both of mine. But I can perfectly understand someone who draws a line at the government telling them what to inject into their body ffs. What if @contrarian was a 29-year old pregnant woman? There would be the same abuse aimed at him (er, her) whereas there has been found to be a small but non-zero risk of the AZN vaccine for such people.
As far as I have noticed he has not pleaded pregnancy as an excuse for his vaccine-refusenik status. He has referred to the vaccines as "experimental" which they are not. For spewing anti-vaxxer bollox he is therefore a legitimate target to be taken the piss out of.
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
So you'd rather government policy was to achieve immunity to Covid by infection rather than by vaccination?
I imagine he probably hopes everyone gets vaccinated removing the need for him to do so. Because he is scared of needles.
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson · 5h When the 21 June roadmap date was agreed, SAGE drew up five scenarios. They put the number of Covid patients in hospital by now between 2,000 and 39,000. Latest figure: 801.
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
I think you would have more credibility with us all if you just admitted you are a right wing nutter that is scared of needles.
Perhaps he thinks vaccines are the work of Satan.
Again, just take a step back and think about it. Vaccines are a great idea; I've had both of mine. But I can perfectly understand someone who draws a line at the government telling them what to inject into their body ffs. What if @contrarian was a 29-year old pregnant woman? There would be the same abuse aimed at him (er, her) whereas there has been found to be a small but non-zero risk of the AZN vaccine for such people.
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson · 5h When the 21 June roadmap date was agreed, SAGE drew up five scenarios. They put the number of Covid patients in hospital by now between 2,000 and 39,000. Latest figure: 801.
It is hard to see what is going on in the blizzard of data about R rates, the Nepali variant (does it exist?), and the nature of who, actually, is now being hospitalised.
But this post, if true, is enough to tell me that we need to hurry up and open up.
We seem to have squandered our vax advantage, and at this rate look lucky if we open up before our G7 peers.
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
So you'd rather government policy was to achieve immunity to Covid by infection rather than by vaccination?
I imagine he probably hopes everyone gets vaccinated removing the need for him to do so. Because he is scared of needles.
Each to his own, bla bla, but it's not quite scanning for me. Sense bullshit.
That said, I'm not too fussed about anti-vaxxers. I would be if there were enough of them to prolong the pandemic in the UK, but that's unlikely to be the case.
And the notion of not treating people who refuse a vaccine but fall ill with Covid is an abomination imo. People suggesting this are losing the plot. In this country you get seen to if you're sick.
Phone call from son in Thailand. Vaccinations start imminently his (Thai) wife has her booking and my son has one too, courtesy of an industrialist friend. Further, people with two vaccinations can fly from Britain to Phuket, stay there a week, and are then free to wander the country. Looking good for us later this year!
Vaccinating children as young as 12 is going to be very controversial indeed. Whichever way the JCVI jumps.
What will be interesting is where other nations sit in the future wrt to vaccine certificates for under 18 travellers. If a vaccine is licensed in that country for 12+, is there any particular reason why they would waive the requirement for a foreign tourist aged 13? What if the country they are from has not approved vaccines in children? Messy.
Not to mention schools. The potential for conflict is high. Each class will contain those whose parents refuse consent, and those who don't want their kids mingling with the unvaccinated. Plus. Presumably these will be done in school? Difficult to conceal who has and hasn't been done.
This is actually a far bigger problem in schools for existing vaccines on childhood diseases than it is for covid. Personally I liked the model in Singapore, where if you couldn't provide a complete immunisation certificate (or medical exemption), you were barred from school.
The problem is this - for fatalities we have scientific papers which come up with distribution curves that match the observed fatality curves quite well. So you can take the number of cases, and project forward the expected number of deaths over the following days. Then try and match that against what actually happened.
For hospital admission, I have haven't found a paper on this - yet. Without that probability curve, it's not really possible to do the calculation of the CHR.
To work out such a curve, you need to analyse the medical records of alot of people. Plot the graph of what happened, when and try a find a function that generates a similar curve.
He's trying to claim lockdown only started on the 26th of March because that was when the Coronavirus legislation went into force and not the 23rd when lockdown was announce, people were told to stay at home and schools were closed?
It's an approach I suppose.
It also assumes a very long time to death from infection (25 days); most other people work off 19-20 days or so.
Looking at case rates (which he seems to slide past for the second and third ones), I can't get the curves to come anywhere near lining up at 22 days (assuming an average of 3 days from infection to cases).
The best lining up is at 16 days from cases to deaths (using England-only data, to avoid any shenanigans with devolved administrations). That would require cases to be 9 days after infection for his assumption to be valid, which seems absurd.
Nicholls disagrees a lot with it as well, noting that it assumes a bell curve distribution of time-to-death, which is inaccurate, as well as a hugely excessive period between infection and death.
It’s not like it’s all jabbed and that’s the end of it, is it? Pretty long lasting moral dilemma keep emerging from the landscape, the background to UK news.
Firstly, Nepal says to the UK help us, after what the Gurkha done for you. And we answer...
Secondly, what is all jabbed? we sit on vaccines, at what point do we share with Africa, Nepal and rest of world who are struggling? Do all UK children first, even though they are not considered at risk group, and then start sharing it? You are not going to say that surely? After the children, why not the cats and dogs next? We love our cats and dogs, scientifically they not be at risk or super spreaders, but just to be on the safe side, eh? and then share with rest of world where needed.
Isn’t the UK already getting left behind, and will be long remembered for it?
Thirdly there is absolutely no way the IP of the vaccines can be shared now. If it’s proved possible to do this tomorrow then why not a lot earlier?
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
So you'd rather government policy was to achieve immunity to Covid by infection rather than by vaccination?
I imagine he probably hopes everyone gets vaccinated removing the need for him to do so. Because he is scared of needles.
Each to his own, bla bla, but it's not quite scanning for me. Sense bullshit.
That said, I'm not too fussed about anti-vaxxers. I would be if there were enough of them to prolong the pandemic in the UK, but that's unlikely to be the case.
And the notion of not treating people who refuse a vaccine but fall ill with Covid is an abomination imo. People suggesting this are losing the plot. In this country you get seen to if you're sick.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not the case. Treatment has been refused by teh NHS, often on spurious grounds, for people who refuse to give up smoking and also those who refuse to lose weight. This has been the case for over 20 years. I would not be in favour of refusing anti-vaxxers treatment, unless they were putting someone else at risk. I think it would be perfectly legitimate to say that it was a condition of travelling abroad until the pandemic is officially over
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
I think you would have more credibility with us all if you just admitted you are a right wing nutter that is scared of needles.
Perhaps he thinks vaccines are the work of Satan.
Again, just take a step back and think about it. Vaccines are a great idea; I've had both of mine. But I can perfectly understand someone who draws a line at the government telling them what to inject into their body ffs. What if @contrarian was a 29-year old pregnant woman? There would be the same abuse aimed at him (er, her) whereas there has been found to be a small but non-zero risk of the AZN vaccine for such people.
I really don't care whether Contrarian takes the vaccine. As long as there are few enough Contrarians that we can get to herd immunity and forget about all this, who cares? Even if there were enough to be a problem, it's their choice and ultimately, certainly once those who want to get vaccinated have got vaccinated we should open up and the likes of Contrarian would be able to take their chances without hiding behind herd immunity (and be kept away, in this short of herd-immunity world with cases still prevalent, from those unable to be vaccinated for genuine health reasons - might mean Contrarian getting sacked if a doctor, nurse or care worker).
I agree, though people that state that the vaccine is "experimental" and other such anti-vax disinformation need to be corrected. This type of disinformation genuinely costs lives.
Having been woken up by the factory manager of one of my clients reporting stupidity which I have now had to manage to their expectant UK customer and try and save them some face, I may be on here today a bit more than recent days. For some reason I am less motivated than I have been, perhaps I'll do work for the other client instead and enjoy the debate on here instead.
As a complete aside I am seriously loving this house we bought in February. The ghosts are quite entertaining - an upstairs storeroom in the bank (attached to the house and now my office) appears to be the domain of a banker who died here at work in 1891. And the house part has a ghost who keeps presenting us with metal objects (screws etc) and last night had fun with the power.
Making tea for the kids (6pm). Downstairs power trips off. Head upstairs to the laundry room where the fuse box is. Tripped. Return partway along the upstairs corridor to shout downstairs to Mrs RP to check nothing had been plugged in that may have caused the trip. Turned back towards the room with the fuses which is literally at the end of the corridor which has 4 bedrooms off it to the right. See one of the kids going into the room, shout "oi!" and of course when I get there the room is empty and the switch has been reset!
Mrs RP has seen a figure in the house, my Sis-in-law who is sensitive to these things has seen and heard from them, this was the first time I had seen an actual ghost. In broad daylight whilst sober. It was triffic.
One hospital that I worked in had a ghostly nurse. She regularly used to comfort patients at night, soothing disturbed patients with her cool hands, and night staff saw her occasionally.
There used to be a tap in the children’s ward at Bart’s which would turn itself on if a child was going to die before morning
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
I think you would have more credibility with us all if you just admitted you are a right wing nutter that is scared of needles.
Perhaps he thinks vaccines are the work of Satan.
Again, just take a step back and think about it. Vaccines are a great idea; I've had both of mine. But I can perfectly understand someone who draws a line at the government telling them what to inject into their body ffs. What if @contrarian was a 29-year old pregnant woman? There would be the same abuse aimed at him (er, her) whereas there has been found to be a small but non-zero risk of the AZN vaccine for such people.
I really don't care whether Contrarian takes the vaccine. As long as there are few enough Contrarians that we can get to herd immunity and forget about all this, who cares? Even if there were enough to be a problem, it's their choice and ultimately, certainly once those who want to get vaccinated have got vaccinated we should open up and the likes of Contrarian would be able to take their chances without hiding behind herd immunity (and be kept away, in this short of herd-immunity world with cases still prevalent, from those unable to be vaccinated for genuine health reasons - might mean Contrarian getting sacked if a doctor, nurse or care worker).
I agree, though people that state that the vaccine is "experimental" and other such anti-vax disinformation need to be corrected. This type of disinformation genuinely costs lives.
Of course, while I defend to the death* Contrarian's right to spout nonsense on here, I also defend to the death* everyone's right to mock Contrarian for that.
*Not to the death obviously. To the point of getting banned, maybe. PB death. Although as we've repeatedly seen on here, reincarnation is a thing.
Having been woken up by the factory manager of one of my clients reporting stupidity which I have now had to manage to their expectant UK customer and try and save them some face, I may be on here today a bit more than recent days. For some reason I am less motivated than I have been, perhaps I'll do work for the other client instead and enjoy the debate on here instead.
As a complete aside I am seriously loving this house we bought in February. The ghosts are quite entertaining - an upstairs storeroom in the bank (attached to the house and now my office) appears to be the domain of a banker who died here at work in 1891. And the house part has a ghost who keeps presenting us with metal objects (screws etc) and last night had fun with the power.
Making tea for the kids (6pm). Downstairs power trips off. Head upstairs to the laundry room where the fuse box is. Tripped. Return partway along the upstairs corridor to shout downstairs to Mrs RP to check nothing had been plugged in that may have caused the trip. Turned back towards the room with the fuses which is literally at the end of the corridor which has 4 bedrooms off it to the right. See one of the kids going into the room, shout "oi!" and of course when I get there the room is empty and the switch has been reset!
Mrs RP has seen a figure in the house, my Sis-in-law who is sensitive to these things has seen and heard from them, this was the first time I had seen an actual ghost. In broad daylight whilst sober. It was triffic.
One hospital that I worked in had a ghostly nurse. She regularly used to comfort patients at night, soothing disturbed patients with her cool hands, and night staff saw her occasionally.
There used to be a tap in the children’s ward at Bart’s which would turn itself on if a child was going to die before morning
I live in a supposed haunted house. Thankfully never seen him/her.
China now outpacing everyone else in the world for vaccinations, both in absolute and relative to population terms. In terms of total overall a clear gap opening between the UK and the USA as they've hit a demand wall.
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
I think you would have more credibility with us all if you just admitted you are a right wing nutter that is scared of needles.
Perhaps he thinks vaccines are the work of Satan.
Again, just take a step back and think about it. Vaccines are a great idea; I've had both of mine. But I can perfectly understand someone who draws a line at the government telling them what to inject into their body ffs. What if @contrarian was a 29-year old pregnant woman? There would be the same abuse aimed at him (er, her) whereas there has been found to be a small but non-zero risk of the AZN vaccine for such people.
I really don't care whether Contrarian takes the vaccine. As long as there are few enough Contrarians that we can get to herd immunity and forget about all this, who cares? Even if there were enough to be a problem, it's their choice and ultimately, certainly once those who want to get vaccinated have got vaccinated we should open up and the likes of Contrarian would be able to take their chances without hiding behind herd immunity (and be kept away, in this short of herd-immunity world with cases still prevalent, from those unable to be vaccinated for genuine health reasons - might mean Contrarian getting sacked if a doctor, nurse or care worker).
I agree, though people that state that the vaccine is "experimental" and other such anti-vax disinformation need to be corrected. This type of disinformation genuinely costs lives.
Of course, while I defend to the death* Contrarian's right to spout nonsense on here, I also defend to the death* everyone's right to mock Contrarian for that.
*Not to the death obviously. To the point of getting banned, maybe. PB death. Although as we've repeatedly seen on here, reincarnation is a thing.
Unless your name is Tim. A certain writer of novels of a Dan Brownian quality is said to haunt us on regular basis.
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson · 5h When the 21 June roadmap date was agreed, SAGE drew up five scenarios. They put the number of Covid patients in hospital by now between 2,000 and 39,000. Latest figure: 801.
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
So you'd rather government policy was to achieve immunity to Covid by infection rather than by vaccination?
I imagine he probably hopes everyone gets vaccinated removing the need for him to do so. Because he is scared of needles.
Each to his own, bla bla, but it's not quite scanning for me. Sense bullshit.
That said, I'm not too fussed about anti-vaxxers. I would be if there were enough of them to prolong the pandemic in the UK, but that's unlikely to be the case.
And the notion of not treating people who refuse a vaccine but fall ill with Covid is an abomination imo. People suggesting this are losing the plot. In this country you get seen to if you're sick.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not the case. Treatment has been refused by teh NHS, often on spurious grounds, for people who refuse to give up smoking and also those who refuse to lose weight. This has been the case for over 20 years. I would not be in favour of refusing anti-vaxxers treatment, unless they were putting someone else at risk. I think it would be perfectly legitimate to say that it was a condition of travelling abroad until the pandemic is officially over
But isn't that more where expensive, life prolonging treatments are prioritized for those who'll benefit the most? Eg if you give it to a heavy smoker or drinker or overeater the treatment will be compromised. So it's not a pure moral decision. With Covid, it would be a moral decision. It's your fault you've caught this and so we're not going to alleviate your pain or help you survive it. That sounds all wrong to me. Re international travel, yes, that's one of the few uses for a vaxxport that I could agree with.
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
So you'd rather government policy was to achieve immunity to Covid by infection rather than by vaccination?
I imagine he probably hopes everyone gets vaccinated removing the need for him to do so. Because he is scared of needles.
Each to his own, bla bla, but it's not quite scanning for me. Sense bullshit.
That said, I'm not too fussed about anti-vaxxers. I would be if there were enough of them to prolong the pandemic in the UK, but that's unlikely to be the case.
And the notion of not treating people who refuse a vaccine but fall ill with Covid is an abomination imo. People suggesting this are losing the plot. In this country you get seen to if you're sick.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not the case. Treatment has been refused by teh NHS, often on spurious grounds, for people who refuse to give up smoking and also those who refuse to lose weight. This has been the case for over 20 years. I would not be in favour of refusing anti-vaxxers treatment, unless they were putting someone else at risk. I think it would be perfectly legitimate to say that it was a condition of travelling abroad until the pandemic is officially over
I agree, in fact I think it's completely batty to put the same travel restrictions on the vaccinated as on the unvaccinated.
Amusing to see that the self isolation policy is now so obviously stupid that when given the choice between following it or looking like a massive hypocrite, Gove went for option b.
In the 2021 Local Elections Tory support was up 10.6% in the most deprived areas and Labour support down 6.1% but in the most affluent areas Tory support was only up 1.4% and Labour support only down 0.7% https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1400815999876747266?s=20
It's a truth universally acknowledged amongst employment lawyers that as soon as your client uses the word "banter" in his defence you've lost.
Working in Glasgow years ago, we had a staff night out. A colleague who worked for me got very drunk, and informed me that I was a sassenach b****rd and I'd have to wear a cross of St George on my coat when walking about in an independent Scotland. He didn't remember this the next day. I didn't renew his contract when it expired 6 months later.
Whatever it should officially be called, is there such a thing as a Nepal variant?
We still have the Nation of Nepal saying No, the UK Government saying Yes? Or is that all cleared up now?
The Nepal variant, which may not be an actual full variant but is possibly a sub-variant of the Indian variant, surfaces in Portugal, and we are now worried about the Nepalese-Indian variant from Portugal coming back here?
You can see why they are trying to move to Greek letters.
Shaun Lintern @ShaunLintern · 49m More good news from Bolton Hospital. Number of Covid patients has fallen again. Now 34 Covid patients in total, down from 49 last Thursday. Six in ICU/HDU down from 12 on Mon. 3 new admission in past 24 hours but 8 discharges #Covid19UK
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
From the article:
'The data NHS Digital will store is pseudonymised, and it says it’ll only be shared with commercial third parties for “research and planning purposes”. But it would be relatively simple to re-identify that data – particularly for those with cross-referencing access to other databases, to say nothing of the risk of the third-party breaches it opens up. According to the very much un-promoted page on the NHS website, the NHS will be able to unlock the pseudonymisation codes “in certain circumstances, and where there is a valid legal reason.'''
I am merely highlighting something that I certainly hadn't heard about up to now. People have a right to know what is happening to their personal data.
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
It was nonsense when the FT did their story and it's nonsense in the Guardian too.
"Neither the British Medical Association nor the Royal College of GPs have endorsed this process". Well, neither has the AA, to my knowledge, nor the BBC. Have either of them actually objected? The Royal College's journal, BJGP, happily publishes research using pseudonymised GP data, including my own.
Edit: my research, not my data (although quite possibly also my data - I don't know whether my GP is in CPRD or not - most in Yorks and Humber are not due to using a different database provider to those included - but my data from previous GPs elsewhere may well be)
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
It was nonsense when the FT did their story and it's nonsense in the Guardian too.
"Neither the British Medical Association nor the Royal College of GPs have endorsed this process". Well, neither has the AA, to my knowledge, nor the BBC. Have either of them actually objected? The Royal College's journal, BJGP, happily publishes research using pseudonymised GP data, including my own.
Excellent, in which case you can choose not to opt out. Isn't it nice to be aware you have options? I didn't know anything about it until a few minutes ago.
It's a truth universally acknowledged amongst employment lawyers that as soon as your client uses the word "banter" in his defence you've lost.
Working in Glasgow years ago, we had a staff night out. A colleague who worked for me got very drunk, and informed me that I was a sassenach b****rd and I'd have to wear a cross of St George on my coat when walking about in an independent Scotland. He didn't remember this the next day. I didn't renew his contract when it expired 6 months later.
I'm not sure I'd want someone working for me who got very drunk on a works night out. Certainly so drunk (and stupid) that he didn't recall saying something like that to the boss.
But if I'd been his union rep, and that was only cause for complaint I think I'd have at least thought about fighting his case.
Agree with the tweet that suggests the boss should be prosecuted. Of course, according to "Union Divvie" anti-English racism doesn't exist in Scotland.
I wouldn't mind if the NHS refused to treat unvaccinated people, if that's what was wanted.
I would happily contract out if I could take my tax money with me.
That's what we should do. Refuse to treat unvaxxed people (unless they have a valid excuse - medical conditions etc)
I do not see why my taxpayer's pound should go to treat stupid selfish people who endanger me and my family, when they are ALSO costing me money - and endangering the mental health of us all - by shagging the economy, because of renewed lockdowns.
Fuck them. Really. Enough
I am un vaccinated and you would stop me being treated. Fine. As long as I can stop contributing to the NHS. Let me contract out.
Looking at the post covid, supposedly 'protected' NHS, I really think that's quite a good deal.
Yes, I would stop you being treated. And you still have to pay your taxes because you are still going to use the NHS aren't you? And it keeps the country going, which you presumably want
But you don't get treated for Covid, no. You are left to die and we save money. This is brutal stuff now. We are teetering on the edge of another disaster
No if you are stopping me from being treated from covid then the NHS no longer free at the point of use, so I want a fully contracted out deal.
No treatment. No payment. Fully private.
Look at the NHS now. For a service that has been 'protected' it is totally on its knees.
You can’t “contract out” of the NHS. There is no such thing as private emergency medicine or high dependency units. If you’re in a private hospital, past a certain point they’ll send you on to the NHS.
So in his terms, his offer is fair - you get the full service for everything except the risk you have chosen to take on Covid.
Ah does this mean I can ask the NHS to stop treating people who are over 25 stone for diabetes, based on the extra risk they have chosen to take relating to that disease? or stop treating smokers for lung problems on the same basis?
A choice all the above have made more deliberately made than the choice I made on Covid.
Especially as it wasn't me that made your freedoms based on hospital numbers.
Though worth remembering that sweets and almost all takeaway food is taxed whereas vegetables and almost all grocery foods are not. And smokers are good for the Exchequer given tobacco duties and the fact they die early so don't claim pensions.
You being a twunt just because you feel it, isn't taxed.
That's a fair point.
Maybe we could consider an 'unvaccinated' insurance premium.....I would pay that.
Forgotten now - what's your reason for not getting vaccinated?
I have been bitterly and opposed to government policy on covid since the start.
It follows therefore that I am doing as little as possible on the government's command that I can get away with.
That said, I wear a mask, work from home, socially distance and almost never meet people outside my bubble.
So you'd rather government policy was to achieve immunity to Covid by infection rather than by vaccination?
I imagine he probably hopes everyone gets vaccinated removing the need for him to do so. Because he is scared of needles.
Each to his own, bla bla, but it's not quite scanning for me. Sense bullshit.
That said, I'm not too fussed about anti-vaxxers. I would be if there were enough of them to prolong the pandemic in the UK, but that's unlikely to be the case.
And the notion of not treating people who refuse a vaccine but fall ill with Covid is an abomination imo. People suggesting this are losing the plot. In this country you get seen to if you're sick.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not the case. Treatment has been refused by teh NHS, often on spurious grounds, for people who refuse to give up smoking and also those who refuse to lose weight. This has been the case for over 20 years. I would not be in favour of refusing anti-vaxxers treatment, unless they were putting someone else at risk. I think it would be perfectly legitimate to say that it was a condition of travelling abroad until the pandemic is officially over
But isn't that more where expensive, life prolonging treatments are prioritized for those who'll benefit the most? Eg if you give it to a heavy smoker or drinker or overeater the treatment will be compromised. So it's not a pure moral decision. With Covid, it would be a moral decision. It's your fault you've caught this and so we're not going to alleviate your pain or help you survive it. That sounds all wrong to me. Re international travel, yes, that's one of the few uses for a vaxxport that I could agree with.
In which case we largely agree. On this subject anyway
Shaun Lintern @ShaunLintern · 49m More good news from Bolton Hospital. Number of Covid patients has fallen again. Now 34 Covid patients in total, down from 49 last Thursday. Six in ICU/HDU down from 12 on Mon. 3 new admission in past 24 hours but 8 discharges #Covid19UK
And these are figures not percentages and easy to understand
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
It was nonsense when the FT did their story and it's nonsense in the Guardian too.
"Neither the British Medical Association nor the Royal College of GPs have endorsed this process". Well, neither has the AA, to my knowledge, nor the BBC. Have either of them actually objected? The Royal College's journal, BJGP, happily publishes research using pseudonymised GP data, including my own.
Excellent, in which case you can choose not to opt out. Isn't it nice to be aware you have options? I didn't know anything about it until a few minutes ago.
Been in place (in current form) since 2018. There was system before that, but was maybe via GP, I forget. The 2018 system was supposed to make it easier.
It's in the paperwork when you sign up with your GP (or should be). Also on notice boards at GPs (or should be) and websites.
You should of course opt out, if you wish. You should also bear in mind that you'll be opting out of your particular situation being taken into account for health policy and safety etc.
It's a truth universally acknowledged amongst employment lawyers that as soon as your client uses the word "banter" in his defence you've lost.
Working in Glasgow years ago, we had a staff night out. A colleague who worked for me got very drunk, and informed me that I was a sassenach b****rd and I'd have to wear a cross of St George on my coat when walking about in an independent Scotland. He didn't remember this the next day. I didn't renew his contract when it expired 6 months later.
When I worked in Scotland I often experienced anti-English sentiment, mainly from those of a nationalist persuasion. It was all "banter" of course they would claim. Most of the folk were charming though. Scotland is a beautiful country with (like most other areas of the world) a lot of wonderful people. It does seem to have more than it's fair share of divisive racist tossers though.
Even more convinced it needs to go ahead, or be cut more, now.
What a nasty isolationist point of view
Borrowing money to give it away during the largest downturn for decades is madness.
The public understand this. This govt is more in tune with the public than JM's outdated view.
Admittedly we have issues, but aren’t they a lot poorer than ourselves, their issues put them a lot more in need, AND we still do have the ability to help them? And whilst you have the ability to cross the road and help someone you should always do it, as the good choice?
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I've nothing against data being used for research but this proposal looks more likely to benefit foreign companies and spies. If the data were to be used by British academic researchers, or with HMG taking a commercial stake, that would be different.
Even more convinced it needs to go ahead, or be cut more, now.
What a nasty isolationist point of view
Borrowing money to give it away during the largest downturn for decades is madness.
The public understand this. This govt is more in tune with the public than JM's outdated view.
The moaners on this would be better off campaigning for more charitable giving rather than press ganging everyone else in to doing it for whatever pet projects the civil servants want to fund.
It's a truth universally acknowledged amongst employment lawyers that as soon as your client uses the word "banter" in his defence you've lost.
Working in Glasgow years ago, we had a staff night out. A colleague who worked for me got very drunk, and informed me that I was a sassenach b****rd and I'd have to wear a cross of St George on my coat when walking about in an independent Scotland. He didn't remember this the next day. I didn't renew his contract when it expired 6 months later.
When I worked in Scotland I often experienced anti-English sentiment, mainly from those of a nationalist persuasion. It was all "banter" of course they would claim. Most of the folk were charming though. Scotland is a beautiful country with (like most other areas of the world) a lot of wonderful people. It does seem to have more than it's fair share of divisive racist tossers though.
Every country/culture has racist tossers. The only people who are surprised by this are those who fetishise a culture - either their own or others...
Mind you, the Nigerian Hitler fan I met was a bit of an eye opener.....
It's a truth universally acknowledged amongst employment lawyers that as soon as your client uses the word "banter" in his defence you've lost.
Working in Glasgow years ago, we had a staff night out. A colleague who worked for me got very drunk, and informed me that I was a sassenach b****rd and I'd have to wear a cross of St George on my coat when walking about in an independent Scotland. He didn't remember this the next day. I didn't renew his contract when it expired 6 months later.
When I worked in Scotland I often experienced anti-English sentiment, mainly from those of a nationalist persuasion. It was all "banter" of course they would claim. Most of the folk were charming though. Scotland is a beautiful country with (like most other areas of the world) a lot of wonderful people. It does seem to have more than it's fair share of divisive racist tossers though.
Every country/culture has racist tossers. The only people who are surprised by this are those who fetishise a culture - either their own or others...
Mind you, the Nigerian Hitler fan I met was a bit of an eye opener.....
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I've nothing against data being used for research but this proposal looks more likely to benefit foreign companies and spies. If the data were to be used by British academic researchers, or with HMG taking a commercial stake, that would be different.
Its is being used by UK scientists. My head of department leads a team that use this data to gather info on rare events with medication and links between rare conditions and medication that could never be found during phase I, II and III trials for instance. I get the impression peoples objections are a manifestation of not wanting their data being spied on, but the data here is anonymised health records, not what you bought in Tesco's last friday or which porn site you flick over to when PB gets a bit dull.
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I've nothing against data being used for research but this proposal looks more likely to benefit foreign companies and spies. If the data were to be used by British academic researchers, or with HMG taking a commercial stake, that would be different.
(I tried to add to my reply to @northern_monkey, but was too late)
These data are for British academic researchers, in the most part. I use NHS Digital data a lot (university researcher). My most recent extract took 18 months from application to getting the data, most of which was me proving that I needed the data, needed exactly the data asked for, had a legal basis etc. To NHS Digital, to their independent group advising on the release of data IGARD and to an independent Research Ethics Committee.
It is illegal for me to access the data outwith the UK. I'm not aware of any exceptions to that rule.
Edit: from the NHSD page linked above, emphasis mine:
"NHS Digital will not approve requests for data to be used for: insurance or marketing purposes promoting or selling products or services market research advertising"
Vaccinating children as young as 12 is going to be very controversial indeed. Whichever way the JCVI jumps.
What will be interesting is where other nations sit in the future wrt to vaccine certificates for under 18 travellers. If a vaccine is licensed in that country for 12+, is there any particular reason why they would waive the requirement for a foreign tourist aged 13? What if the country they are from has not approved vaccines in children? Messy.
Not to mention schools. The potential for conflict is high. Each class will contain those whose parents refuse consent, and those who don't want their kids mingling with the unvaccinated. Plus. Presumably these will be done in school? Difficult to conceal who has and hasn't been done.
This is actually a far bigger problem in schools for existing vaccines on childhood diseases than it is for covid. Personally I liked the model in Singapore, where if you couldn't provide a complete immunisation certificate (or medical exemption), you were barred from school.
The problem is this - for fatalities we have scientific papers which come up with distribution curves that match the observed fatality curves quite well. So you can take the number of cases, and project forward the expected number of deaths over the following days. Then try and match that against what actually happened.
For hospital admission, I have haven't found a paper on this - yet. Without that probability curve, it's not really possible to do the calculation of the CHR.
To work out such a curve, you need to analyse the medical records of alot of people. Plot the graph of what happened, when and try a find a function that generates a similar curve.
He's trying to claim lockdown only started on the 26th of March because that was when the Coronavirus legislation went into force and not the 23rd when lockdown was announce, people were told to stay at home and schools were closed?
It's an approach I suppose.
It also assumes a very long time to death from infection (25 days); most other people work off 19-20 days or so.
Looking at case rates (which he seems to slide past for the second and third ones), I can't get the curves to come anywhere near lining up at 22 days (assuming an average of 3 days from infection to cases).
The best lining up is at 16 days from cases to deaths (using England-only data, to avoid any shenanigans with devolved administrations). That would require cases to be 9 days after infection for his assumption to be valid, which seems absurd.
Nicholls disagrees a lot with it as well, noting that it assumes a bell curve distribution of time-to-death, which is inaccurate, as well as a hugely excessive period between infection and death.
Whatever it should officially be called, is there such a thing as a Nepal variant?
We still have the Nation of Nepal saying No, the UK Government saying Yes? Or is that all cleared up now?
The Nepal variant, which may not be an actual full variant but is possibly a sub-variant of the Indian variant, surfaces in Portugal, and we are now worried about the Nepalese-Indian variant from Portugal coming back here?
You can see why they are trying to move to Greek letters.
I agree, daft labelling. The far smarter solution use characters from ‘watch with mother’. To use use your example, the Indian variant is Windymiller, the possible Nepal sub variant is Andypandy, so with Andypandy in Portugal, UK government concerned of importing Andypandy sub variant of Windymiller.
That’s better isn’t it?
Surely the scientists can say wether Andypandy is actually a thing or not?
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I've nothing against data being used for research but this proposal looks more likely to benefit foreign companies and spies. If the data were to be used by British academic researchers, or with HMG taking a commercial stake, that would be different.
Big data will be a massive benefit to global health, and in particular the NHS. No idea whether it will benefit "spies", though I guess that is a legitimate concern. There aren't really such thing as "foreign companies" when it comes to healthcare. Most are global, often with global shareholdings that often benefit pension funds around the world. As long as proper safeguards are put in place I think you have a lot less to fear from this issue than registering yourself on the internet and using social media, or for that matter, even this site.
Vaccinating children as young as 12 is going to be very controversial indeed. Whichever way the JCVI jumps.
What will be interesting is where other nations sit in the future wrt to vaccine certificates for under 18 travellers. If a vaccine is licensed in that country for 12+, is there any particular reason why they would waive the requirement for a foreign tourist aged 13? What if the country they are from has not approved vaccines in children? Messy.
Not to mention schools. The potential for conflict is high. Each class will contain those whose parents refuse consent, and those who don't want their kids mingling with the unvaccinated. Plus. Presumably these will be done in school? Difficult to conceal who has and hasn't been done.
This is actually a far bigger problem in schools for existing vaccines on childhood diseases than it is for covid. Personally I liked the model in Singapore, where if you couldn't provide a complete immunisation certificate (or medical exemption), you were barred from school.
The problem is this - for fatalities we have scientific papers which come up with distribution curves that match the observed fatality curves quite well. So you can take the number of cases, and project forward the expected number of deaths over the following days. Then try and match that against what actually happened.
For hospital admission, I have haven't found a paper on this - yet. Without that probability curve, it's not really possible to do the calculation of the CHR.
To work out such a curve, you need to analyse the medical records of alot of people. Plot the graph of what happened, when and try a find a function that generates a similar curve.
He's trying to claim lockdown only started on the 26th of March because that was when the Coronavirus legislation went into force and not the 23rd when lockdown was announce, people were told to stay at home and schools were closed?
It's an approach I suppose.
It also assumes a very long time to death from infection (25 days); most other people work off 19-20 days or so.
Looking at case rates (which he seems to slide past for the second and third ones), I can't get the curves to come anywhere near lining up at 22 days (assuming an average of 3 days from infection to cases).
The best lining up is at 16 days from cases to deaths (using England-only data, to avoid any shenanigans with devolved administrations). That would require cases to be 9 days after infection for his assumption to be valid, which seems absurd.
Nicholls disagrees a lot with it as well, noting that it assumes a bell curve distribution of time-to-death, which is inaccurate, as well as a hugely excessive period between infection and death.
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I think anyone who complains about "Big Pharma" should be offered the Sputnik shite
And anyone who complains about five and six-figure drug prices?
IIRC about 1 in 20 of initially promising drug entities turn out to be useful. But each requires highly qualified people to work on them and assess them at the various stages, with some dropping out along the way, including after marketing. And those highly qualified people require salaries, plus expensive equipment.
What an embarrassing interview. The chortling prof says they can't be aliens because "they don't pass the smell test"
Because he must have met aliens before so he knows exactly what to expect?
How is he a professor! What a joke. “Humans build vehicles so if they’re vehicles they’re human”. He would fail the 11+ with that grasp of logic.
The truth is that the Pentagon is in a pickle. The objects are not US secret tech (or at least in most cases) because if they were, it would be hilariously inept not to have forewarned the Congressional Committee before they legally mandated the report. And how would this square with the comments from the last NID, ex CIA directors and yes, Obama?
And since they cannot provide any evidence of the craft coming from another country (or at least in most cases), this would mean that not only has the US been leapfrogged to an alarming level but it’s happened with no indication whatsoever of who has done it and how.
I start to lean towards Biden making a proper speech about it all this year. Because “DUNNO!!” is too embarrassing a conclusion to give to a specific national intelligence request about threats to US airspace and military assets.
What an embarrassing interview. The chortling prof says they can't be aliens because "they don't pass the smell test"
Because he must have met aliens before so he knows exactly what to expect?
The time it takes them, as a mass, to travel the vast distances of space, they are going to whiff a bit when they get here. Unless of course you saying they have some form of laundry mechanism our backward minds can’t even begin to contemplate.
Do you think they still mash potatoes themselves, or have some other means of creamy mash?
Professor Pantsdown has gone back to doomsday mode....
Professor Lockdown' Neil Ferguson warns Indian variant is between 30% and 100% more infectious and twice as likely to cause hospitalisation in the unvaccinated compared to Kent strain
100% more infectious is pretty grisly. Jeez
Not as grisly as his 150,000,000 deaths from bird flu. Reality: 282.
Why does anyone still listen to this clown? Only reason: he's telling them something they want to hear.
Not true. Ferguson has generally been one of the more level-headed boffins
Remember his original prediction, right at the start of Covid, in an interview with Channel 4 which produced outright incredulity and derision, here and elsewhere
He predicted 500,000 British dead "without any mitigation".
We have had intense lockdowns and we basically shuttered our cities, and we still have 150,000 dead, with maybe more to come
He was right. If anything he might have under-estimated how many would die with no counter-measures taken
The 'pantsdown' thing is also a bit odd, as that's not the troubling bit of what he did - his mother in law defended him, implying that he and her daughter were already separated and the woman he slept with was apparently in an open marriage. Outside of lockdown, his actions appear morally fine.
The criticism should be (only) for the hipocrisy of breaking lockdown guidance (he did not break the law, as it stood at the time) while being one of the government advisors pushing the need for lockdown.
I guess it doesn't sound as good, but "Professor Hypocrite" is a far more suitable derogatory term.
He made a serious error of judgment in his personal life but if we disregarded professional opinion because of such errors then we wouldn’t listen to any professionals. His analysis has, in this pandemic, been sound and was, until Johnson spaffed away our vaccine advantage, quite upbeat of late.
Ferguson's serious error of judgement was to fail to balance he colossal harmful effects of the lockdowns he prescribed in his recommendation
In saying he thinks 21 June is a 'very difficult decision', he is almost tacitly admitting as much.
"He predicted 500,000 British dead "without any mitigation"."
His model predicted disaster for non-lockdown Sweden.
It didn't happen.
The model is wrong.
The model predicted 'disaster' for Sweden in a life as normal scenario. In Sweden, as elsewhere (although much less forced) people changed behaviour (and some restrictions were implemented)
The Ferguson worst case estimates are about twice (if I recall correctly) the actual death toll in Sweden. Compared to about 3-4 times the actual UK death toll (depending which death figures you use). Which makes sense if you consider that the UK locked down much harder than Sweden.
But people choose their own behaviour if they're concerned, that's the point in a liberal free society. When there's a risk, people choose their own way to respond.
Life as normal doesn't happen in any country in a pandemic.
I didn't get your point to start with (might still not). Is it that the models were therefore unrealistic?
If so, then yes - and that's why many of us were arguing against the doom mongers early last year, saying that these projections would never happen because they depended on no mitigation which would happen.
But how do you do a realistic model, in early 2020 on no government action, if so? Now it's a bit easier, some data, particularly thanks to Sweden. But early last year it was very hard to say if, when, in what ways and how much people would modify their behaviour. Some data from SARS1 etc, but in very different countries. Before that, you're back to Spanish flu for a really big one and that's not very applicable - most people back then if they didn't physically go out to work then they had no income.
Well yes exactly. Sorry to use a stereotypical economist phrase but its really a case of "on the one hand ... on the other hand ..."
All models are pretty unrealistic, very unrealistic if they don't account for human nature leading to voluntary changes, but that's a critical part of modelling. People's behaviour is extremely hard to model and any model that doesn't account for changes in behaviour is doomed to failure - its like having a model of increased taxation rates that doesn't account for the fact behaviour will change to avoid the tax. When there's a serious risk of illness or death, then even more than taxes, people voluntarily amend their own behaviour whether they're told to or not by law.
Both sets of extremists act as if no changes from the baseline would have happened without governmental action. So the zero covid lockdown diehards act as if behaviour wouldn't change and there'd be hundreds of thousands of extra deaths without action. The lockdown sceptics act as if economic behaviour wouldn't have changed and there'd be billions of extra trade in the economy and no deficit that we only lost because of lockdowns. Both are fallacious extremism.
Even more convinced it needs to go ahead, or be cut more, now.
Quite. Call it the 'thank John Major for being a twat' cut.
In the afterlife, there is a Good Place and there is a Bad Place, but in both places the only way you can eat is with ten foot long chopsticks, so in the Bad Place everyone always feels hungry.
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I think anyone who complains about "Big Pharma" should be offered the Sputnik shite
And anyone who complains about five and six-figure drug prices?
There are some sharp practices that go on in pharma, though it tends to be with small pharma rather than big. There are some who believe making money out of healthcare is wrong, but the reality is that this is what drives investment. Capitalism has had an amazing track record in providing ground breaking treatment. Most pharma and device companies are listed companies. Their executives have a fiduciary duty to make return on investment for shareholders. Most or large part of those shareholders are pension funds, so they benefit lots of pensioners. Those on the left think this is wrong, but I don't see many of them refusing treatment.
There is an easy answer, do not accept drugs or devices that are manufactured by companies you disapprove of. Sputnik vaccine for you!
That's basically China admitting they created Covid, probably as a bioweapon
What’s your logic?
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: "Accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt"
What an embarrassing interview. The chortling prof says they can't be aliens because "they don't pass the smell test"
Because he must have met aliens before so he knows exactly what to expect?
How is he a professor! What a joke. “Humans build vehicles so if they’re vehicles they’re human”. He would fail the 11+ with that grasp of logic.
The truth is that the Pentagon is in a pickle. The objects are not US secret tech (or at least in most cases) because if they were, it would be hilariously inept not to have forewarned the Congressional Committee before they legally mandated the report. And how would this square with the comments from the last NID, ex CIA directors and yes, Obama?
And since they cannot provide any evidence of the craft coming from another country (or at least in most cases), this would mean that not only has the US been leapfrogged to an alarming level but it’s happened with no indication whatsoever of who has done it and how.
I start to lean towards Biden making a proper speech about it all this year. Because “DUNNO!!” is too embarrassing a conclusion to give to a specific national intelligence request about threats to US airspace and military assets.
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I think anyone who complains about "Big Pharma" should be offered the Sputnik shite
And anyone who complains about five and six-figure drug prices?
There are some sharp practices that go on in pharma, though it tends to be with small pharma rather than big. There are some who believe making money out of healthcare is wrong, but the reality is that this is what drives investment. Capitalism has had an amazing track record in providing ground breaking treatment. Most pharma and device companies are listed companies. Their executives have a fiduciary duty to make return on investment for shareholders. Most or large part of those shareholders are pension funds, so they benefit lots of pensioners. Those on the left think this is wrong, but I don't see many of them refusing treatment.
There is an easy answer, do not accept drugs or devices that are manufactured by companies you disapprove of. Sputnik vaccine for you!
As an idealistic young socialist I always used to wonder why the vast majority of medicines were made in the capitalist West rather than the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union's pharmaceutical systems were rubbish, and based on politically orientated 'science' rather than real science. The guy who taught A level Biology at the school I attended would have had Lysenko and his like shot!
Vaccinating children as young as 12 is going to be very controversial indeed. Whichever way the JCVI jumps.
What will be interesting is where other nations sit in the future wrt to vaccine certificates for under 18 travellers. If a vaccine is licensed in that country for 12+, is there any particular reason why they would waive the requirement for a foreign tourist aged 13? What if the country they are from has not approved vaccines in children? Messy.
Not to mention schools. The potential for conflict is high. Each class will contain those whose parents refuse consent, and those who don't want their kids mingling with the unvaccinated. Plus. Presumably these will be done in school? Difficult to conceal who has and hasn't been done.
This is actually a far bigger problem in schools for existing vaccines on childhood diseases than it is for covid. Personally I liked the model in Singapore, where if you couldn't provide a complete immunisation certificate (or medical exemption), you were barred from school.
The problem is this - for fatalities we have scientific papers which come up with distribution curves that match the observed fatality curves quite well. So you can take the number of cases, and project forward the expected number of deaths over the following days. Then try and match that against what actually happened.
For hospital admission, I have haven't found a paper on this - yet. Without that probability curve, it's not really possible to do the calculation of the CHR.
To work out such a curve, you need to analyse the medical records of alot of people. Plot the graph of what happened, when and try a find a function that generates a similar curve.
He's trying to claim lockdown only started on the 26th of March because that was when the Coronavirus legislation went into force and not the 23rd when lockdown was announce, people were told to stay at home and schools were closed?
It's an approach I suppose.
It also assumes a very long time to death from infection (25 days); most other people work off 19-20 days or so.
Looking at case rates (which he seems to slide past for the second and third ones), I can't get the curves to come anywhere near lining up at 22 days (assuming an average of 3 days from infection to cases).
The best lining up is at 16 days from cases to deaths (using England-only data, to avoid any shenanigans with devolved administrations). That would require cases to be 9 days after infection for his assumption to be valid, which seems absurd.
Nicholls disagrees a lot with it as well, noting that it assumes a bell curve distribution of time-to-death, which is inaccurate, as well as a hugely excessive period between infection and death.
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I've nothing against data being used for research but this proposal looks more likely to benefit foreign companies and spies. If the data were to be used by British academic researchers, or with HMG taking a commercial stake, that would be different.
Its is being used by UK scientists. My head of department leads a team that use this data to gather info on rare events with medication and links between rare conditions and medication that could never be found during phase I, II and III trials for instance. I get the impression peoples objections are a manifestation of not wanting their data being spied on, but the data here is anonymised health records, not what you bought in Tesco's last friday or which porn site you flick over to when PB gets a bit dull.
Yep, well put.
A bit of context on identification risk (I work with these data). If one of you is in the data I have, then this is an example of what I reckon I would need to know that the pseudonymised ID in the data is you: - exact date of an admission to and discharge from hospital - the name of the hospital - your LSOA (small geography of ~3000 people) of residence OR your month and year of birth
I think that would probably do it. It might not (if someone else matches on all of those, but then, if I knew your health conditions then I could use diagnostic codes to pick you out from the matches).
Keep in mind also that I had to justify to NHS Digital exactly why I needed each of those fields, I'm not just given them without justification.
Keep in mind also that for you even to be in the data given to me, I need to justify your inclusion. They don't just give researchers the whole NHS database. So you're only in there at all if you have characteristics that match my sample (often based on medical history, although it could be other demographics).
That's for hospital data. The current fuss is over GP data. It will be possible to get linked GP and hospital data, but - again - I'd have to justify that. If I only had GP data then I'd need to know: - Your GP practice - Exact dates of at least a few visits - Ideally some of your medical conditions (LSOA not very useful here as most people in your LSOA probably go to your GP) or at least your medications
If I successfully re-identify you then, if caught, I'll face prosecution, I'll be banned from accessing the data for life and my university will get a temporary ban.
That's basically China admitting they created Covid, probably as a bioweapon
What’s your logic?
Don't be SILLY! Logic? When did a populist novelist ever use logic? A good ripping yarn with a bit of controversy thrown in. Add in aliens, Chinese and probably a bit of pseudo-science, pseudo-religion and phoney archaeology and you get a best seller!
Vaccinating children as young as 12 is going to be very controversial indeed. Whichever way the JCVI jumps.
What will be interesting is where other nations sit in the future wrt to vaccine certificates for under 18 travellers. If a vaccine is licensed in that country for 12+, is there any particular reason why they would waive the requirement for a foreign tourist aged 13? What if the country they are from has not approved vaccines in children? Messy.
Not to mention schools. The potential for conflict is high. Each class will contain those whose parents refuse consent, and those who don't want their kids mingling with the unvaccinated. Plus. Presumably these will be done in school? Difficult to conceal who has and hasn't been done.
This is actually a far bigger problem in schools for existing vaccines on childhood diseases than it is for covid. Personally I liked the model in Singapore, where if you couldn't provide a complete immunisation certificate (or medical exemption), you were barred from school.
The problem is this - for fatalities we have scientific papers which come up with distribution curves that match the observed fatality curves quite well. So you can take the number of cases, and project forward the expected number of deaths over the following days. Then try and match that against what actually happened.
For hospital admission, I have haven't found a paper on this - yet. Without that probability curve, it's not really possible to do the calculation of the CHR.
To work out such a curve, you need to analyse the medical records of alot of people. Plot the graph of what happened, when and try a find a function that generates a similar curve.
He's trying to claim lockdown only started on the 26th of March because that was when the Coronavirus legislation went into force and not the 23rd when lockdown was announce, people were told to stay at home and schools were closed?
It's an approach I suppose.
It also assumes a very long time to death from infection (25 days); most other people work off 19-20 days or so.
Looking at case rates (which he seems to slide past for the second and third ones), I can't get the curves to come anywhere near lining up at 22 days (assuming an average of 3 days from infection to cases).
The best lining up is at 16 days from cases to deaths (using England-only data, to avoid any shenanigans with devolved administrations). That would require cases to be 9 days after infection for his assumption to be valid, which seems absurd.
Nicholls disagrees a lot with it as well, noting that it assumes a bell curve distribution of time-to-death, which is inaccurate, as well as a hugely excessive period between infection and death.
The Chinese are using a known technique, propounded by revolutionary communists for decades. When you are correctly accused of doing something terrible, sling the accusation right back, to confuse and confound
This isn't rocket science, fellas. It's not even coronavirus research
Shaun Lintern @ShaunLintern · 49m More good news from Bolton Hospital. Number of Covid patients has fallen again. Now 34 Covid patients in total, down from 49 last Thursday. Six in ICU/HDU down from 12 on Mon. 3 new admission in past 24 hours but 8 discharges #Covid19UK
And these are figures not percentages and easy to understand
Excellent
Agreed - very effective. With the raw numbers you can visualise the situation in the hospital. Percentages in this case would have been misleading and given no sense of scale.
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I think anyone who complains about "Big Pharma" should be offered the Sputnik shite
And anyone who complains about five and six-figure drug prices?
There are some sharp practices that go on in pharma, though it tends to be with small pharma rather than big. There are some who believe making money out of healthcare is wrong, but the reality is that this is what drives investment. Capitalism has had an amazing track record in providing ground breaking treatment. Most pharma and device companies are listed companies. Their executives have a fiduciary duty to make return on investment for shareholders. Most or large part of those shareholders are pension funds, so they benefit lots of pensioners. Those on the left think this is wrong, but I don't see many of them refusing treatment.
There is an easy answer, do not accept drugs or devices that are manufactured by companies you disapprove of. Sputnik vaccine for you!
As an idealistic young socialist I always used to wonder why the vast majority of medicines were made in the capitalist West rather than the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union's pharmaceutical systems were rubbish, and based on politically orientated 'science' rather than real science. The guy who taught A level Biology at the school I attended would have had Lysenko and his like shot!
Ed: proof reading again!
Indeed, healthcare is expensive, and drug development in particular. Risk/return has to be carefully balanced. Remove the profit motive and in particular the need for shareholder value and the innovation tap is turned off. It would be interesting to see a parallel universe where profits from health were not allowed. I suspect the world would look very backward in comparison.
Even more convinced it needs to go ahead, or be cut more, now.
Quite. Call it the 'thank John Major for being a twat' cut.
In the afterlife, there is a Good Place and there is a Bad Place, but in both places the only way you can eat is with ten foot long chopsticks, so in the Bad Place everyone always feels hungry.
I remember being told that parable when very young. It has always stayed with me. Where does it originate?
Or allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man, and stop being a dick...
allow your anonymised data to be used for the benefit of your fellow man or American big pharma & AI companies and not forgetting the KGB.
I missed where the Covid vaccines came from - any idea if big pharma were involved at all?
I've nothing against data being used for research but this proposal looks more likely to benefit foreign companies and spies. If the data were to be used by British academic researchers, or with HMG taking a commercial stake, that would be different.
Its is being used by UK scientists. My head of department leads a team that use this data to gather info on rare events with medication and links between rare conditions and medication that could never be found during phase I, II and III trials for instance. I get the impression peoples objections are a manifestation of not wanting their data being spied on, but the data here is anonymised health records, not what you bought in Tesco's last friday or which porn site you flick over to when PB gets a bit dull.
Yep, well put.
A bit of context on identification risk (I work with these data). If one of you is in the data I have, then this is an example of what I reckon I would need to know that the pseudonymised ID in the data is you: - exact date of an admission to and discharge from hospital - the name of the hospital - your LSOA (small geography of ~3000 people) of residence OR your month and year of birth
I think that would probably do it. It might not (if someone else matches on all of those, but then, if I knew your health conditions then I could use diagnostic codes to pick you out from the matches).
Keep in mind also that I had to justify to NHS Digital exactly why I needed each of those fields, I'm not just given them without justification.
Keep in mind also that for you even to be in the data given to me, I need to justify your inclusion. They don't just give researchers the whole NHS database. So you're only in there at all if you have characteristics that match my sample (often based on medical history, although it could be other demographics).
That's for hospital data. The current fuss is over GP data. It will be possible to get linked GP and hospital data, but - again - I'd have to justify that. If I only had GP data then I'd need to know: - Your GP practice - Exact dates of at least a few visits - Ideally some of your medical conditions (LSOA not very useful here as most people in your LSOA probably go to your GP) or at least your medications
If I successfully re-identify you then, if caught, I'll face prosecution, I'll be banned from accessing the data for life and my university will get a temporary ban.
One issue with GP's is their lack of 'experience'. Clinical experience is valued, but once qualified, the average GP may well only come into contact with 3-4000 patients, including those of their partners, and in many cases those patients will have similar socio-economic circumstances. Bulking the data offers the opportunity to build up a much, much bigger picture.
This week a 32-year-old Canadian woman, Jasmine Hartin, was accused of the negligent manslaughter of a local [Belizean] police superintendent, Henry Jemmott. The case has attracted attention because Hartin is the partner of Andrew Ashcroft, son of Michael Ashcroft, the Conservative party donor and Belize’s most influential resident. Lord Ashcroft is a former Tory party deputy chairman, a one-time member of the House of Lords, and a billionaire.
The question now is whether justice can be dispassionately delivered, given Lord Ashcroft’s larger-than-life status in the one-time British colony, which won independence in 1981, to the displeasure of next-door Guatemala. Ashcroft is a joint UK and Belize national. He has made no comment.
I'm probably skirting the sub judice rule here...but I think she got a bit lucky with a negligent manslaughter charge...
"Lucky" is not the way it's being characterized by Belize media.
Comments
If you are looking for absolute truth from a political standpoint it is like trying to reason without objectivity, no one can escape some form of bias, that is the plan revealed here isn’t it?
Is it actually wrong there are people who disagree, hence you should get all worked up? Or is that just the beauty of it, the intelligence of it?
Whatever it should officially be called, is there such a thing as a Nepal variant?
We still have the Nation of Nepal saying No, the UK Government saying Yes? Or is that all cleared up now?
@FraserNelson
·
5h
When the 21 June roadmap date was agreed, SAGE drew up five scenarios. They put the number of Covid patients in hospital by now between 2,000 and 39,000. Latest figure: 801.
But this post, if true, is enough to tell me that we need to hurry up and open up.
We seem to have squandered our vax advantage, and at this rate look lucky if we open up before our G7 peers.
That said, I'm not too fussed about anti-vaxxers. I would be if there were enough of them to prolong the pandemic in the UK, but that's unlikely to be the case.
And the notion of not treating people who refuse a vaccine but fall ill with Covid is an abomination imo. People suggesting this are losing the plot. In this country you get seen to if you're sick.
Looking good for us later this year!
Looking at case rates (which he seems to slide past for the second and third ones), I can't get the curves to come anywhere near lining up at 22 days (assuming an average of 3 days from infection to cases).
The best lining up is at 16 days from cases to deaths (using England-only data, to avoid any shenanigans with devolved administrations). That would require cases to be 9 days after infection for his assumption to be valid, which seems absurd.
Nicholls disagrees a lot with it as well, noting that it assumes a bell curve distribution of time-to-death, which is inaccurate, as well as a hugely excessive period between infection and death.
https://twitter.com/sinichol/status/1382716847959764994
Firstly, Nepal says to the UK help us, after what the Gurkha done for you. And we answer...
Secondly, what is all jabbed? we sit on vaccines, at what point do we share with Africa, Nepal and rest of world who are struggling?
Do all UK children first, even though they are not considered at risk group, and then start sharing it? You are not going to say that surely? After the children, why not the cats and dogs next? We love our cats and dogs, scientifically they not be at risk or super spreaders, but just to be on the safe side, eh? and then share with rest of world where needed.
Isn’t the UK already getting left behind, and will be long remembered for it?
Thirdly there is absolutely no way the IP of the vaccines can be shared now. If it’s proved possible to do this tomorrow then why not a lot earlier?
*Not to the death obviously. To the point of getting banned, maybe. PB death. Although as we've repeatedly seen on here, reincarnation is a thing.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1400815999876747266?s=20
https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1400812911417774092?s=20
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1400808461789806592?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/04/tories-nhs-data-grab-pandemic
You can see why they are trying to move to Greek letters.
@ShaunLintern
·
49m
More good news from Bolton Hospital. Number of Covid patients has fallen again. Now 34 Covid patients in total, down from 49 last Thursday. Six in ICU/HDU down from 12 on Mon. 3 new admission in past 24 hours but 8 discharges #Covid19UK
'The data NHS Digital will store is pseudonymised, and it says it’ll only be shared with commercial third parties for “research and planning purposes”. But it would be relatively simple to re-identify that data – particularly for those with cross-referencing access to other databases, to say nothing of the risk of the third-party breaches it opens up. According to the very much un-promoted page on the NHS website, the NHS will be able to unlock the pseudonymisation codes “in certain circumstances, and where there is a valid legal reason.'''
I am merely highlighting something that I certainly hadn't heard about up to now. People have a right to know what is happening to their personal data.
"Neither the British Medical Association nor the Royal College of GPs have endorsed this process". Well, neither has the AA, to my knowledge, nor the BBC. Have either of them actually objected? The Royal College's journal, BJGP, happily publishes research using pseudonymised GP data, including my own.
Edit: my research, not my data (although quite possibly also my data - I don't know whether my GP is in CPRD or not - most in Yorks and Humber are not due to using a different database provider to those included - but my data from previous GPs elsewhere may well be)
But if I'd been his union rep, and that was only cause for complaint I think I'd have at least thought about fighting his case.
Excellent
It's in the paperwork when you sign up with your GP (or should be). Also on notice boards at GPs (or should be) and websites.
You should of course opt out, if you wish. You should also bear in mind that you'll be opting out of your particular situation being taken into account for health policy and safety etc.
The public understand this. This govt is more in tune with the public than JM's outdated view.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/06/04/ufo-sightings-china-hakeem-oluseyi-intv-newday-vpx.cnn
Mind you, the Nigerian Hitler fan I met was a bit of an eye opener.....
Because he must have met aliens before so he knows exactly what to expect?
From NHSD
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-collections/general-practice-data-for-planning-and-research/advice-for-the-public
From Wellcome Trust (endowed by Wellcome pharma in 1930s, which evolved thorugh vaious mergers to become GSK, but now completely separate)
https://understandingpatientdata.org.uk/news/national-data-opt-out-impact
(I tried to add to my reply to @northern_monkey, but was too late)
These data are for British academic researchers, in the most part. I use NHS Digital data a lot (university researcher). My most recent extract took 18 months from application to getting the data, most of which was me proving that I needed the data, needed exactly the data asked for, had a legal basis etc. To NHS Digital, to their independent group advising on the release of data IGARD and to an independent Research Ethics Committee.
It is illegal for me to access the data outwith the UK. I'm not aware of any exceptions to that rule.
Edit: from the NHSD page linked above, emphasis mine:
"NHS Digital will not approve requests for data to be used for:
insurance or marketing purposes
promoting or selling products or services
market research
advertising"
Hah!
That’s better isn’t it?
Surely the scientists can say wether Andypandy is actually a thing or not?
"JUST IN - China accuses the U.S. and Japan of running a secret biological warfare development program."
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1400827649921105920?s=20
And those highly qualified people require salaries, plus expensive equipment.
The truth is that the Pentagon is in a pickle. The objects are not US secret tech (or at least in most cases) because if they were, it would be hilariously inept not to have forewarned the Congressional Committee before they legally mandated the report. And how would this square with the comments from the last NID, ex CIA directors and yes, Obama?
And since they cannot provide any evidence of the craft coming from another country (or at least in most cases), this would mean that not only has the US been leapfrogged to an alarming level but it’s happened with no indication whatsoever of who has done it and how.
I start to lean towards Biden making a proper speech about it all this year. Because “DUNNO!!” is too embarrassing a conclusion to give to a specific national intelligence request about threats to US airspace and military assets.
Do you think they still mash potatoes themselves, or have some other means of creamy mash?
All models are pretty unrealistic, very unrealistic if they don't account for human nature leading to voluntary changes, but that's a critical part of modelling. People's behaviour is extremely hard to model and any model that doesn't account for changes in behaviour is doomed to failure - its like having a model of increased taxation rates that doesn't account for the fact behaviour will change to avoid the tax. When there's a serious risk of illness or death, then even more than taxes, people voluntarily amend their own behaviour whether they're told to or not by law.
Both sets of extremists act as if no changes from the baseline would have happened without governmental action. So the zero covid lockdown diehards act as if behaviour wouldn't change and there'd be hundreds of thousands of extra deaths without action. The lockdown sceptics act as if economic behaviour wouldn't have changed and there'd be billions of extra trade in the economy and no deficit that we only lost because of lockdowns. Both are fallacious extremism.
There is an easy answer, do not accept drugs or devices that are manufactured by companies you disapprove of. Sputnik vaccine for you!
The Soviet Union's pharmaceutical systems were rubbish, and based on politically orientated 'science' rather than real science. The guy who taught A level Biology at the school I attended would have had Lysenko and his like shot!
Ed: proof reading again!
A bit of context on identification risk (I work with these data). If one of you is in the data I have, then this is an example of what I reckon I would need to know that the pseudonymised ID in the data is you:
- exact date of an admission to and discharge from hospital
- the name of the hospital
- your LSOA (small geography of ~3000 people) of residence OR your month and year of birth
I think that would probably do it. It might not (if someone else matches on all of those, but then, if I knew your health conditions then I could use diagnostic codes to pick you out from the matches).
Keep in mind also that I had to justify to NHS Digital exactly why I needed each of those fields, I'm not just given them without justification.
Keep in mind also that for you even to be in the data given to me, I need to justify your inclusion. They don't just give researchers the whole NHS database. So you're only in there at all if you have characteristics that match my sample (often based on medical history, although it could be other demographics).
That's for hospital data. The current fuss is over GP data. It will be possible to get linked GP and hospital data, but - again - I'd have to justify that. If I only had GP data then I'd need to know:
- Your GP practice
- Exact dates of at least a few visits
- Ideally some of your medical conditions (LSOA not very useful here as most people in your LSOA probably go to your GP) or at least your medications
If I successfully re-identify you then, if caught, I'll face prosecution, I'll be banned from accessing the data for life and my university will get a temporary ban.
This isn't rocket science, fellas. It's not even coronavirus research
become its own ghost story
Bulking the data offers the opportunity to build up a much, much bigger picture.