Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ministers on mask-wearing: Don’t do as we do but as we say – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 14 in General
Ministers on mask-wearing: Don’t do as we do but as we say – politicalbetting.com

Imagine releasing this picture, from today, and then giving a press conference telling people they should wear facemasks indoors. pic.twitter.com/A8DNOpb5V3

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • I am shocked.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,021

    I am shocked.

    Me TWO, Second post.

    Mike usually can be relied upon for a little more.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 20,898
    All that said I'm currently booked to be in West Dunbartonshire in early October. The area with the highest cases per capita in the UK. So if this spectacular week on week fall could continue that would be great.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

  • (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 95,999
    edited September 14
    Alistair said:

    All that said I'm currently booked to be in West Dunbartonshire in early October. The area with the highest cases per capita in the UK. So if this spectacular week on week fall could continue that would be great.

    Forget that, what about my trip to Glasgow in November to see Blondie with Garbage?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,964


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    I do wonder whether it is time for some really hard hitting advertising along those lines.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353
    No. They're saying "wear a mask in a crowd" - that's not a crowd, it's a meeting

    There is much to criticise HMG on Covid, this ain't it
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 13,804
    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    I do wonder whether it is time for some really hard hitting advertising along those lines.

    Don't die of ignorance.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 14


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    I do wonder whether it is time for some really hard hitting advertising along those lines.

    I would...we are past the stage of nudge and trying some polite outreach among "hesitant" communities....5 million unvaxxed people need some hard hitting dose of the truth.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    Is that true? What is the mortality by age pre-vaccine?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,964
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    Have a chat with Prof Pagel. She'll fill you in.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632
    Leon said:

    No. They're saying "wear a mask in a crowd" - that's not a crowd, it's a meeting

    There is much to criticise HMG on Covid, this ain't it

    They'd certainly be breaking COVID rules in my office! We're only allowed eight people in a room that's roughly that size.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,739
    edited September 14


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    I do wonder whether it is time for some really hard hitting advertising along those lines.

    Yes, it should be like the AIDS campaigns of the late 80's - DON'T DIE OF STUPIDITY or something similar, with some quotes from relatives of antivaxxers who have died of COVID.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    Leon said:

    No. They're saying "wear a mask in a crowd" - that's not a crowd, it's a meeting

    There is much to criticise HMG on Covid, this ain't it

    She didn't mean there is no such thing as society, she meant that society is made up of individuals all of whom have a valid and important contribution to make and all of whom should in turn be valued.

    Oh. You're not listening? K.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 14
    TOPPING said:


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    Is that true? What is the mortality by age pre-vaccine?
    That was the stat Dr Doom used at the press conference.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    Have a chat with Prof Pagel. She'll fill you in.
    I am not taking her calls right now so would genuinely appreciate an answer.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757

    TOPPING said:


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    Is that true? What is the mortality by age pre-vaccine?
    That was the stat Dr Doom used at the press conference.
    Seems unlikely, doesn't it?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 95,999
    edited September 14
    O/T - With my work hate on I'm looking at some actual data and some polling about cash.

    In short, keep the odd note, it'll be worth zillions in the future as we transition to a fully cashless society.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,019
    Beth Rigby FFS on sticking to rules.

  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,627

    Alistair said:

    All that said I'm currently booked to be in West Dunbartonshire in early October. The area with the highest cases per capita in the UK. So if this spectacular week on week fall could continue that would be great.

    Forget that, what about my trip to Glasgow in November to see Blondie with Garbage?
    that's no way to talk about Boris and Carrie.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 14
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    Is that true? What is the mortality by age pre-vaccine?
    That was the stat Dr Doom used at the press conference.
    Seems unlikely, doesn't it?
    Data on the chart presented (and previously linked on herr).....just to be clear, i don't believe it was death, it was hospitalisations, but i wouldn't be surprised if not far off for death either.

    Remember very few fully vaxxed people who don't have underlying conditions have died. Large number of unvaxxed have.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    UK Local R

    image
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    Surely the guidance was for winter if there is a big rise in cases, we are still barely in autumn let alone winter
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    Is that true? What is the mortality by age pre-vaccine?
    That was the stat Dr Doom used at the press conference.
    Seems unlikely, doesn't it?
    Data on the chart.....just to be clear, i don't believe it was death, it was hospitalisations, but i wouldn't be surprised if not far off for death either.

    Remember very few fully vaxxed people who don't have underlying conditions have died. Large number of unvaxxed have.
    Hmm. I thought it was the old who were predominantly hospitalised but don't have nor have the strength to look at the stats.
  • Absolute tosser.

    British sprinter CJ Ujah's 'B' sample has tested positive, confirming the result of his initial test from the Tokyo Olympics.

    Ujah, 27, was part of the British men's 4x100m relay team which won silver at the rearranged 2020 Olympics.

    They will now almost certainly lose those medals as a result of the tests.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/58559089
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,632
    So difficult. No one believes a word Boris Johnson says and even if it proves to be true you know it's said with an ulterior motive. It really shouldn't be like this. We deserve better.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 19,632

    O/T - With my work hate on I'm looking at some actual data and some polling about cash.

    In short, keep the odd note, it'll be worth zillions in the future as we transition to a fully cashless society.

    I kept hold of my ticket for Brighton v Arsenal scheduled for Saturday 14 March 2020. Given most home fans have season cards, I reckon there won't be too many physical tickets knocking around from such games.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,572
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
  • tlg86 said:

    O/T - With my work hate on I'm looking at some actual data and some polling about cash.

    In short, keep the odd note, it'll be worth zillions in the future as we transition to a fully cashless society.

    I kept hold of my ticket for Brighton v Arsenal scheduled for Saturday 14 March 2020. Given most home fans have season cards, I reckon there won't be too many physical tickets knocking around from such games.
    Yup, I'm at Anfield tomorrow night and tickets are all NFC now.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    UK case summary

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,310
    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    No. They're saying "wear a mask in a crowd" - that's not a crowd, it's a meeting

    There is much to criticise HMG on Covid, this ain't it

    They'd certainly be breaking COVID rules in my office! We're only allowed eight people in a room that's roughly that size.
    We tried and spectacularly failed at that today. Basically everyone who is ready to come to the office is not very risk averse and won't stick to any guidelines on social distancing or capacity restrictions on meeting spaces or breakout areas. Tbh, I thought they were stupid and none of the senior managers made any effort to enforce them (myself included, I'm not a policeman and I disagreed with them anyway).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    UK hospitals

    image
    image
    image
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    edited September 14
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    The (b) is deeply misleading.

    Because:

    - many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all, cutting their viral shedding to zero
    - of those that get it, most will be only mildly symptomatic, cutting their viral shedding dramatically.
    - and of those who are symptomatic, the amount of time time they are infectious will be far shorter.

    One of my bugbears is that there's a headline that says "some vaccinated people can shed as much viral load as unvaccinated". Which is true, but deeply misleading. All the evidence (and there is ample evidence) shows that you dramatically (at least 85%) cut the amount of viral matter being thrown around.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    UK Deaths

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    UK R

    image
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    dixiedean said:

    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.

    Despite all the criticism then of him it does look like Trudeau will win a 3rd term even if he fails to get a majority.

    Assuming the next Canadian election is not until 2025 that means he would have been PM for at least 10 years, something only 3 PMs of Canada have managed since 1948 St Laurent, his father Pierre and Jean Chretien. He would also beat the 9 years Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper managed
  • Absolute tosser.

    British sprinter CJ Ujah's 'B' sample has tested positive, confirming the result of his initial test from the Tokyo Olympics.

    Ujah, 27, was part of the British men's 4x100m relay team which won silver at the rearranged 2020 Olympics.

    They will now almost certainly lose those medals as a result of the tests.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/58559089

    Must have been a dodgy burrito.....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    Age related data

    image
    image
    image
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,964
    Excellent summary of the situation with regard to long term safety of vaccines:

    https://bostonreview.net/science-nature/andrew-l-croxford-long-term-safety-argument-over-covid-19-vaccines
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    No. They're saying "wear a mask in a crowd" - that's not a crowd, it's a meeting

    There is much to criticise HMG on Covid, this ain't it

    They'd certainly be breaking COVID rules in my office! We're only allowed eight people in a room that's roughly that size.
    We tried and spectacularly failed at that today. Basically everyone who is ready to come to the office is not very risk averse and won't stick to any guidelines on social distancing or capacity restrictions on meeting spaces or breakout areas. Tbh, I thought they were stupid and none of the senior managers made any effort to enforce them (myself included, I'm not a policeman and I disagreed with them anyway).
    I think the nudges in place (public transport, supermarkets, etc) could well be adequate to contain R at these levels of virus and vaccination.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572
    Age related data scaled to 100K

    image
    image
    image
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Ungrammatical "Both the PM and Emma agreed" - you don't need "Both", because one of them can't agree and the other not.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,310

    Absolute tosser.

    British sprinter CJ Ujah's 'B' sample has tested positive, confirming the result of his initial test from the Tokyo Olympics.

    Ujah, 27, was part of the British men's 4x100m relay team which won silver at the rearranged 2020 Olympics.

    They will now almost certainly lose those medals as a result of the tests.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/58559089

    What an idiot. Feel bad for the other three in the team.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    dixiedean said:

    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.

    Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    The (b) is deeply misleading.

    Because:

    - many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all, cutting their viral shedding to zero
    - of those that get it, most will be only mildly symptomatic, cutting their viral shedding dramatically.
    - and of those who are symptomatic, the amount of time time they are infectious will be far shorter.

    One of my bugbears is that there's a headline that says "some vaccinated people can shed as much viral load as unvaccinated". Which is true, but deeply misleading. All the evidence (and there is ample evidence) shows that you dramatically (at least 85%) cut the amount of viral matter being thrown around.
    Yes you have posted that stat before. But "many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all". Would appreciate details of that.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,310
    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
  • isamisam Posts: 37,436

    tlg86 said:

    O/T - With my work hate on I'm looking at some actual data and some polling about cash.

    In short, keep the odd note, it'll be worth zillions in the future as we transition to a fully cashless society.

    I kept hold of my ticket for Brighton v Arsenal scheduled for Saturday 14 March 2020. Given most home fans have season cards, I reckon there won't be too many physical tickets knocking around from such games.
    Yup, I'm at Anfield tomorrow night and tickets are all NFC now.
    The brilliant Football Cliches podcast did the 12 stages of a club in crisis, last week; one of the latter stages was a supporter running up toa manager and throwin their season ticket at them in disgust. -Apparently Steve mcLaren had it done to him twice, Boro in 06 and Newcastle in 2016 - nowadays you'd have to run up with your phone, shove it in their face and and delete the email/app before their eyes
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,355
    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    Lairig Ghru?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 13,804
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.

    Despite all the criticism then of him it does look like Trudeau will win a 3rd term even if he fails to get a majority.

    Assuming the next Canadian election is not until 2025 that means he would have been PM for at least 10 years, something only 3 PMs of Canada have managed since 1948 St Laurent, his father Pierre and Jean Chretien. He would also beat the 9 years Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper managed
    Bit too early to say that imho. But it is getting better each day for the Libs. Trudeau's rope a dope a third time. Doesn't throw a punch till the last fortnight around debate time.
    Unknown is the PPC. Exactly how many are there? The pollsters can't agree. Will they show up to vote? And if they do, might they vote Tory? Is looking a bit like the UKIP/Brexit vote was here.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,964
    If case rates keep dropping like a stone, will anyone bother turning up for a booster vax?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    edited September 14
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
    Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923

    Alistair said:

    All that said I'm currently booked to be in West Dunbartonshire in early October. The area with the highest cases per capita in the UK. So if this spectacular week on week fall could continue that would be great.

    Forget that, what about my trip to Glasgow in November to see Blondie with Garbage?
    I do hope the effect of COP26 will not be detrimental to the covid stats.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,047
    IshmaelZ said:

    Ungrammatical "Both the PM and Emma agreed" - you don't need "Both", because one of them can't agree and the other not.
    Emma could have agreed with the notion of supporting grassroots tennis, and the PM not, or vice versa.

    (Although admittedly it would have been unlikely that they would have tweeted about it had one of them disagreed with it!)

  • Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    All that said I'm currently booked to be in West Dunbartonshire in early October. The area with the highest cases per capita in the UK. So if this spectacular week on week fall could continue that would be great.

    Forget that, what about my trip to Glasgow in November to see Blondie with Garbage?
    I do hope the effect of COP26 will not be detrimental to the covid stats.
    Fingers crossed they do not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 14
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.

    Despite all the criticism then of him it does look like Trudeau will win a 3rd term even if he fails to get a majority.

    Assuming the next Canadian election is not until 2025 that means he would have been PM for at least 10 years, something only 3 PMs of Canada have managed since 1948 St Laurent, his father Pierre and Jean Chretien. He would also beat the 9 years Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper managed
    Bit too early to say that imho. But it is getting better each day for the Libs. Trudeau's rope a dope a third time. Doesn't throw a punch till the last fortnight around debate time.
    Unknown is the PPC. Exactly how many are there? The pollsters can't agree. Will they show up to vote? And if they do, might they vote Tory? Is looking a bit like the UKIP/Brexit vote was here.
    It is true yes that if the PPC vote collapses in favour of the Tories that could change things, though if the NDP vote falls in favour of the Liberals that would equally apply
  • If case rates keep dropping like a stone, will anyone bother turning up for a booster vax?

    Why wouldn't you...its a no brainer...same as it was a few months ago when low cases.
  • TOPPING said:


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    51m
    Figures on deaths and hospitalisation in this press conference underling a simple message. If you’re still refusing to get vaccinated you’re off your head.

    Its even simpler...no vaccine...your getting covid and then you are playing russian roulette....a 30 year old is as at as much risk as a fully vaxxed 70 year old.
    Is that true? What is the mortality by age pre-vaccine?
    Truth and Advertising? Oxymoronic.
  • If case rates keep dropping like a stone, will anyone bother turning up for a booster vax?

    Why wouldn't you...its a no brainer...same as it was a few months ago when low cases.
    GB News needs to be shut down during the booster vax period.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,153

    Absolute tosser.

    British sprinter CJ Ujah's 'B' sample has tested positive, confirming the result of his initial test from the Tokyo Olympics.

    Ujah, 27, was part of the British men's 4x100m relay team which won silver at the rearranged 2020 Olympics.

    They will now almost certainly lose those medals as a result of the tests.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/58559089

    It's perhaps a symptom of the times that, when I read your post, all I could think of was Covid tests. It seemed a bit harsh to me to ban disqualify the team because one of them had Covid!

    Then I engaged brain and worked it out...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 13,804
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.

    Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
    Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up.
    The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC.
    So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,310
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
    Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
    Which makes sense, I think it's important to give kids the choice. I wouldn't want to be in a position where someone who wanted to get a vaccine wasn't able to and then got severe or lasting symptoms.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 95,999
    edited September 14
    OMG

    Nicki Minaj has responded to that Boris Johnson press conference. She forgives him but not Chris Whitty.

    https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437808558687490048
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 202
    Selebian said:

    Then I engaged brain

    And that's why I'm going to have to ask you to leave now. This is not the place for that kind of behaviour.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,461
    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    Lairig Ghru?
    I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,021

    OMG

    Nicki Minaj has responded to that Boris Johnson press conference.

    https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437808558687490048

    I can't imagine how you ever found that link. To actually post it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889

    OMG

    Nicki Minaj has responded to that Boris Johnson press conference. She forgives him but not Chris Whitty.

    https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437808558687490048

    Almost as bad a British accent as Dick Van Dyke's
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    edited September 14
    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    It's hard to tell at that resolution, but Bealach na Ba down from Applecross?

    When I walked that, it was in fog. My GF - driving a motorhome - took the postman's path.

    Edit: I think not, with those mountains in the background. hmmm....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
    Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
    Which makes sense, I think it's important to give kids the choice. I wouldn't want to be in a position where someone who wanted to get a vaccine wasn't able to and then got severe or lasting symptoms.
    I would have thought 12yrs is quite young to "weigh up all the facts". But then I don't have a 12yr old child.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 202
    HYUFD said:

    OMG

    Nicki Minaj has responded to that Boris Johnson press conference. She forgives him but not Chris Whitty.

    https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437808558687490048

    Almost as bad a British accent as Dick Van Dyke's
    Dick van Dyke isn't British
    (day 2)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,310

    If case rates keep dropping like a stone, will anyone bother turning up for a booster vax?

    It makes sense to get it if you're in a higher risk category. Tbh, I'd get it because it will significantly reduce the risk of giving it to other people and the risk from a half dose or Moderna or a full dose of Pfizer is absolutely tiny for me compared to older people getting COVID even after being double/triple jabbed. Plus less chance of a positive result when travelling so reduces the risk of having to isolate, especially over Christmas when we're all going to be indoors and in contact with loads of people.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    edited September 14
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    The (b) is deeply misleading.

    Because:

    - many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all, cutting their viral shedding to zero
    - of those that get it, most will be only mildly symptomatic, cutting their viral shedding dramatically.
    - and of those who are symptomatic, the amount of time time they are infectious will be far shorter.

    One of my bugbears is that there's a headline that says "some vaccinated people can shed as much viral load as unvaccinated". Which is true, but deeply misleading. All the evidence (and there is ample evidence) shows that you dramatically (at least 85%) cut the amount of viral matter being thrown around.
    The vaccine doesn't stop transmission in the community but it dampens it. And it doesn't stop serious illness and death in any one infected individual but it makes both far less likely. This is my understanding. That said, I don't think the case for doing children or the booster is that strong. Sure, do it, but we could also not do it. And in global terms the shots would do more good elsewhere.
  • Omnium said:

    OMG

    Nicki Minaj has responded to that Boris Johnson press conference.

    https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437808558687490048

    I can't imagine how you ever found that link. To actually post it?
    A few journalists I follow shared it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 14
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.

    Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
    Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up.
    The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC.
    So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
    The problem for O'Toole is he has focused so much on reassuring centrists in suburban Ontario he is a moderate on gay marriage and climate change etc and supportive of vaccines and masks he forgot about his right flank in the rural West which he is now leaking to Bernier and the populist Trumpite and UKIP like PPC
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    Lairig Ghru?
    I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
    It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
    Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
    Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,461

    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    It's hard to tell at that resolution, but Bealach na Ba down from Applecross?

    When I walked that, it was in fog. My GF - driving a motorhome - took the postman's path.

    Edit: I think not, with those mountains in the background. hmmm....
    The Stelvio would be my guess. Hard with a thumbnail...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    edited September 14
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    The (b) is deeply misleading.

    Because:

    - many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all, cutting their viral shedding to zero
    - of those that get it, most will be only mildly symptomatic, cutting their viral shedding dramatically.
    - and of those who are symptomatic, the amount of time time they are infectious will be far shorter.

    One of my bugbears is that there's a headline that says "some vaccinated people can shed as much viral load as unvaccinated". Which is true, but deeply misleading. All the evidence (and there is ample evidence) shows that you dramatically (at least 85%) cut the amount of viral matter being thrown around.
    Yes you have posted that stat before. But "many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all". Would appreciate details of that.
    The key research is from August, when research was published that showedthere's about a five point gap between symptomatic and total infections. The CDC demonstrated that while effectiveness at preventing symptomatic infections was 95% in a pre-Delta world, vaccines were 90% effective at preventing any detectable infection.

    Effectiveness of vaccines against Delta are lower. I posted CDC research yesterday that showed that the efficacy against symptomatic Covid has dipped from 94/95% for original Covid to 79% for Delta.

    Even if we assume that the gap between symptomatic infections and all infections is now fifteen percentage points, then that would still have around two-thirds of people given the vaccine not getting any detectable levels of Covid. (And therefore being highly unlikely to spread the disease. Plus, of course, children tend to have stronger immune systems, and therefore the vaccines are likely to be more effective for them.)

    It's also worth taking a step back for a second.

    Do you know why you sneeze and cough? It's becuase of survival of the fittest. Viruses that cause their hosts to cough and sneeze get spread around more. It's evolutionary pressure to put viral material out there. Someone who is completely asymptomatic isn't going to be coughing or sneezing, and that severely limits the amount of viral material they can excrete. And the evidence is legion that sneezing and coughing are major transmission vectors for Covid.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 945

    If case rates keep dropping like a stone, will anyone bother turning up for a booster vax?

    If they have any brain cells they should, the picture/outlook could change in an instant.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
    Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
    Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
    Was the point Zahawi was trying to make. Very interesting. Especially with a new vaccine.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,461

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    Lairig Ghru?
    I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
    It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
    Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?

    Ditto a road, of course.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,007
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
    Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
    Gillick competence, innit?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    edited September 14

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    Lairig Ghru?
    I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
    It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
    Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?

    Ditto a road, of course.
    Bleep. I'm thinking of the Corrieyairack Pass from Fort Augustus.

    I'm obviously a 'Scottish expert'!

    And I've walked both...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    The (b) is deeply misleading.

    Because:

    - many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all, cutting their viral shedding to zero
    - of those that get it, most will be only mildly symptomatic, cutting their viral shedding dramatically.
    - and of those who are symptomatic, the amount of time time they are infectious will be far shorter.

    One of my bugbears is that there's a headline that says "some vaccinated people can shed as much viral load as unvaccinated". Which is true, but deeply misleading. All the evidence (and there is ample evidence) shows that you dramatically (at least 85%) cut the amount of viral matter being thrown around.
    Yes you have posted that stat before. But "many vaccinated people won't get the disease at all". Would appreciate details of that.
    The key research is from August, when research was published that showedthere's about a five point gap between symptomatic and total infections. The CDC demonstrated that while effectiveness at preventing symptomatic infections was 95% in a pre-Delta world, vaccines were 90% effective at preventing any detectable infection.

    Effectiveness of vaccines against Delta are lower. I posted CDC research yesterday that showed that the efficacy against symptomatic Covid has dipped from 94/95% for original Covid to 79% for Delta.

    Even if we assume that the gap between symptomatic infections and all infections is now fifteen percentage points, then that would still have around two-thirds of people given the vaccine not getting any detectable levels of Covid. (And therefore being highly unlikely to spread the disease. Plus, of course, children tend to have stronger immune systems, and therefore the vaccines are likely to be more effective for them.)

    It's also worth taking a step back for a second.

    Do you know why you sneeze and cough? It's becuase of survival of the fittest. Viruses that cause their hosts to cough and sneeze get spread around more. It's evolutionary pressure to put viral material out there. Someone who is completely asymptomatic isn't going to be coughing or sneezing, and that severely limits the amount of viral material they can excrete. And the evidence is legion that sneezing and coughing are major transmission vectors for Covid.
    Thanks for that - I found this: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/227713/coronavirus-infections-three-times-lower-double/

    But your line "effective...at preventing detectable infection". Does that mean you test negative for the virus or you are asymptomatic.

    But we are talking about spreading between and amongst children, who are at an accepted tiny risk of either Covid or the vaccine.

    If you are saying vaccine = low detectable levels of the virus = not much virus in the body once "infected" then that re-asks the question of who is this for? The double-vaccinated adults or other children who are overwhelmingly likely to suffer not much if anything beyond that cough and sneeze? Not I understand a rare occurrence for children regardless of vaccine and virus.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 39,168

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    Lairig Ghru?
    I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
    It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
    Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?

    Ditto a road, of course.
    Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 13,804
    edited September 14
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.

    Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
    Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up.
    The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC.
    So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
    The problem for O'Toole is he has focused so much on reassuring centrists in suburban Ontario he is a moderate on gay marriage and climate change etc and supportive of vaccines and masks he forgot about his right flank in the rural West which he is now leaking to Bernier and the populist Trumpite and UKIP like PPC
    It is a recurring issue for the CPC. They can easily score 33%. Try to push on from there and their coalition begins to creak at the seams.

    Edit. That is, of course, when the Liberals have a credible PM as their leader for the Centrist flank to vote for.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 14,634
    HYUFD said:

    Surely the guidance was for winter if there is a big rise in cases, we are still barely in autumn let alone winter

    I'm sure that we can all agree that winter starts on December 1st.

    (Disappears into the kitchen just in case I have started WW3)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 30,757
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
    Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
    Gillick competence, innit?
    Yes as @Foxy noted. I think the question it will raise is that a 12-yr old deciding to ingest a new vaccine is different from administering contraception which is an age old procedure plus we are talking about 12-yr olds (the law referred only to "under 16s - all from your wiki article). It also then says that the parents' responsibility "diminishes with the child's evolving maturity". So at 12 they are at the beginning of that process whereas by 15 they are far more mature.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    HYUFD said:

    Surely the guidance was for winter if there is a big rise in cases, we are still barely in autumn let alone winter

    I'm sure that we can all agree that winter starts on December 1st.

    (Disappears into the kitchen just in case I have started WW3)
    It starts on November 1 and lasts into late April. The "four seasons" thing is a pizza marketing ploy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Curse of previous thread.

    Canada. Average of last 13 polls over previous 3 days. 21k+ sampled by a variety of methods.

    Lib 32.2 (-0.9)
    Con 30.8 (-3.5)
    NDP 19.3 (+3.3)
    BQ 6.7 (-0.9)
    PPC 6.5 (+4.9)
    GP 3.4 (-3.2) Changes with previous election.

    Doesn't stop the Guardian, amongst others, leading with "The PM trails in the polls." He does in some, not on average (mean) any longer.
    Direction of travel becoming clear.
    Early voting already taking place in Alberta at least.

    Incidentally. Tories unvaccinated candidates becoming a late issue.

    Has there been a big Liberal bounceback?
    Not particularly. But their vote has been shoring up.
    The Tories have been put on the backfoot re vaccines and got tangled up talking about assault weapons. They're bleeding votes to the PPC.
    So more a Conservative fall and a smaller Liberal rise.
    The problem for O'Toole is he has focused so much on reassuring centrists in suburban Ontario he is a moderate on gay marriage and climate change etc and supportive of vaccines and masks he forgot about his right flank in the rural West which he is now leaking to Bernier and the populist Trumpite and UKIP like PPC
    It is a recurring issue for the CPC. They can easily score 33%. Try to push on from there and their coalition begins to creak at the seams.
    Indeed, Harper has been the only one to manage it since the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform) in 2003 and even he only managed to get a Conservative majority in 2011, helped in part by a collapse from the Liberals in favour of the NDP who briefly became the main opposition
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Here is somewhere that PB top gear fans should recognise:


    Lairig Ghru?
    I'm not sure the road through the Lairig Ghru is that good. It certainly wasn't that well surfaced when I last rode a bike on it.
    It's not *good*, but when I walked it there were Landrovers near the top, and linesmen working on the powerlines.
    Powerlines in the Lairig Ghru? Wot?

    Ditto a road, of course.
    Ah but there is a watershed, the only one I have ever seen. A modest sized lochan with burns running out of both ends, one to the north sea on the east coast and one to the Atlantic on the west. It's quite something.
    I believe it's possible to walk from the west coast of Scotland to the east coast in a day - from possibly faulty memory (given my performance on this thread so far), from somewhere to Bonar Bridge.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,499
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    I can genuinely not think of a reason to vaccinate children. They a) don't get (very) ill; and b) can still get and transmit the virus. Perhaps transmission is lower if they are vaccinated but it would be lower if they are asymptomatic, which most are.

    The govt says to avoid people being off school but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed so if they do they will be off school anyway. Meanwhile, bubbles as I understand it have been abolished so whole classes won't be sent home.

    What am I missing?

    a) don't get (very) ill; Risk from naive Covid is higher than the vaccine, the CDC have covered that.

    but children can still get the virus having been vaxxed True, but it's less likely for any child. And less likely for one child = less cases in the childhood population = lower transmission to adults = lower global R.

    Also if a teenager catches Covid and is vaxxed they'll have subsequent strong hybrid immunity - that keeps everything lower for longer too.

    The virus hasn't passed stage 3 trials, the vaccines have - making a choice not to vaccinate when it's available essentially means you're saying the virus is safer than the vaccine. It's only "safer" if the virus is at very low levels, and those levels are achieved through .... vaccination.
    I'm sure the risk from Covid is higher than from the vaccine but so what. We are talking tiny risks for both.

    Why is it less likely for someone, anyone, to get the virus if they have been vaccinated?
    I think the point is that it should be available and both kids and parents can make a judgement based on the evidence. If I was a parent to a 12-15 year old I'd want them to get it but if they said they wanted to wait until they turned 16 or whatever I wouldn't have any objections. Not giving people the choice was my biggest problem with the JCVI approach, parents and kids have agency, they don't need to be told what to do and what not to do.
    Interesting exchange on R4 this morning with Nadim Zahawi. If your 12-yr old child wanted to have it and you didn't, then based upon a consultation with a GP if the GP deemed the child competent to weigh up the risks and various factors, then the 12-yr old would have it. And vice versa presumably.
    Yes, that is the law on consent. It has not changed for years, and relates to the Gillick case in the Eighties.
    Yes, but I thought that this related to the 16-18 year olds? I'm surprised and somewhat troubled that 12 year olds are going to be able to get vaccinated for Covid without parental consent.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 14,634
    An interesting choice of photo to accompany the 17:35 post on the BBC live Covid thread.

    It must have been a chilly day.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889

    HYUFD said:

    Surely the guidance was for winter if there is a big rise in cases, we are still barely in autumn let alone winter

    I'm sure that we can all agree that winter starts on December 1st.

    (Disappears into the kitchen just in case I have started WW3)
    Astronomical winter only begins on December 21st
Sign In or Register to comment.