Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, only2garners said:

Zahawi was appointed at the end of November, 7 weeks ago. The great majority of the planning for the vaccination roll-out had been done well before then.

Hancock and Jenner shared the role before Zahawi, but most of the work was done by Downing Street civil servants along with local teams, the planning, distribution planning, vaccine hubs.

By the way can I just say how brilliant it is that your wife has come out of retirement to help roll out the vaccine. It’s times like these when the country needs all hands to the pump and thankfully we have many thousands of volunteers like your wife stepping up doing just that. 

Superb effort

Edited by Gav
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • chaddyrovers

    1365

  • Gav

    1258

  • den

    1089

  • philipl

    994

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

False dichotomy alert. I don't quite see how the two are related. I mean it's not an either or is it? Given the furlough and mortgage schemes (both excellent btw) are already in place before Cumm

Have spent a couple of days thinking what to write on here as I am utterly bewildered as to what this so called government is up to regarding schools. Firstly, before Christmas my school had seve

All I can say is it's a nice bonus as a key worker that my son arrived today instead of his due date of 22nd December. Work have very generously offered me extended Pat Leave for 3 weeks full pay as o

Posted Images

I'm not quite sure how I can say this again Gav, but the whole plan is the responsibility of the NHS under Simon Stevens. I've no doubt there has been some ministerial and Civil Service involvement but Stevens is running it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

So if you had the virus you may be immune for 5 months but you can definately catch it again, carry and transmit it.

Means the vaccine is likely to be the same i.e. only lasts for 5-6 months.

This tells me by the time we have vaccinated the 30 million most vulnerable, they will need to start vaccinating them all again to avoid deaths and lockdown next winter.

Also that everyone who is under 50 and healthy (the other 40 million) are never likely to be vaccinated.

Probably just something we have to live with now. Oh well.

I read the articles about immunity not showing after 6 months or so. I thought I'd had it a year ago but then when I did an antibody test in October or November I had no antibodies so assumed I probably hadn't had it. It now appears I might have had it after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

If this government with its world beating rollout programme could vaccinate the entire population in the next 24 hours we're still going to have social distancing rules and to have to wear face masks for a long, long time.

Hows that? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, only2garners said:

I'm not quite sure how I can say this again Gav, but the whole plan is the responsibility of the NHS under Simon Stevens. I've no doubt there has been some ministerial and Civil Service involvement but Stevens is running it.

The Government gave the NHS the task of vaccinate the population cos of their experience with Flu jab. The NHS are experience at doing sort of work. But the Government has been working with NHS teams, Public health teams and the Army to get more vaccination centres open and get us all vaccinate which we need. Plus putting all the logistics in place to ensure we get the vaccine to the centres. This is huge operation to put in place and get it effective is tough task. 

Also retired NHS staff and volunteers helping out and working with Vaccination teams need huge credit for doing so.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Yep, being vaccinated doesn't mean you can't still transmit it so any notion that the vaccines on their own are going to resolve this crisis is wishful thinking. If this government with its world beating rollout programme could vaccinate the entire population in the next 24 hours we're still going to have social distancing rules and to have to wear face masks for a long, long time. As football fans, I can't see us being allowed back in stadiums in numbers  until well into the future. 

I'm really confused by this. If everyone is vaccinated and had time to work up immunity why would it be an issue if it is still being transmitted? Genuine question.

(Also linked to this it has not been proven that it stops transmission, but the working assumption is the vaccines should significantly reduce transmission from those vaccinated).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

I'm really confused by this. If everyone is vaccinated and had time to work up immunity why would it be an issue if it is still being transmitted? Genuine question.

(Also linked to this it has not been proven that it stops transmission, but the working assumption is the vaccines should significantly reduce transmission from those vaccinated).

I don't think everyone is going to be vaccinated, as some will choose not to. Herd Immunity requires estimates of 75%-90% coverage of population by vaccination. In France less than 40% of the population have said they will have it. Extrapolate that kind if low take up around the world and there is an obvious problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

I'm really confused by this. If everyone is vaccinated and had time to work up immunity why would it be an issue if it is still being transmitted? Genuine question.

 

I'm really confused that you can't see the problem

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

I don't think everyone is going to be vaccinated, as some will choose not to. Herd Immunity requires estimates of 75%-90% coverage of population by vaccination. In France less than 40% of the population have said they will have it. Extrapolate that kind if low take up around the world and there is an obvious problem. 

Yes that is a significant problem for eradicating the disease.

But if the goal is to protect the public health system the key metric is not how many of the general population are vaccinated, but how many of the risk groups which drive hospital admissions are vaccinated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

I'm really confused that you can't see the problem

 

 

13 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

I'm really confused that you can't see the problem

 Have you given up on having an opinion and voicing suggestions regarding The Rovers Jim? Genuine Question by the way.

Edited by darrenrover
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

I'm really confused that you can't see the problem

I am still confused! It's an odd statement to say even if everyone is vaccinated today (and allowed the three weeks to work up immunity) that restrictions cannot be removed? I've havent heard anyone say that so wondering what scientific angle your basing it on?

Edited by joey_big_nose
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, joey_big_nose said:

Yes that is a significant problem for eradicating the disease.

But if the goal is to protect the public health system the key metric is not how many of the general population are vaccinated, but how many of the risk groups which drive hospital admissions are vaccinated.

That wasn't your original point, and anyway 25% of hospital admissions are currently under the age of 55. That is a lot more than last Spring. Who knows what the next mutation will bring...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, darrenrover said:

 

 

 Have you given up on having an opinion and voicing suggestions regarding The Rovers Jim? Genuine Question by the way.

See match thread yesterday. Genuine answer

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

That wasn't your original point, and anyway 25% of hospital admissions are currently under the age of 55. That is a lot more than last Spring. Who knows what the next mutation will bring...

My original point was answering Jims hypothetical scenarios of 100% vaccine coverage not making a difference...

Your point regarding under 55s is a really good one. I suppose the question is how many of the patients in hospital over the pandemic are people who would not be vaccinated in the initial 15m vaccination risk group. If a big number of the people in hospital are outside the 15m group then yes we could be waiting till those cohorts of people are innoculated also which pushes the timeline out from March till June I guess...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

I am still confused! It's an odd statement to say even if everyone is vaccinated today (and allowed the three weeks to work up immunity) that restrictions cannot be removed? I've havent heard anyone say that so wondering what scientific angle your basing it on?

There is no credible scientific basis for saying the vaccine reduces a person's chance of catching and therefore spreading the virus.

As far as I am aware there are no medical papers stating this.  

The vaccine reduces your chances of getting a serious illness. But you can still catch it. You can still pass it on! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jim mk2 said:

There is no credible scientific basis for saying the vaccine reduces a person's chance of catching and therefore spreading the virus.

As far as I am aware there are no medical papers stating this.  

The vaccine reduces your chances of getting a serious illness. But you can still catch it. You can still pass it on! 

Yes but if everyone is vaccinated then only 10% get Ill at all, and ~0% get seriously ill so impact to NHS goes away...

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

See match thread yesterday. Genuine answer

Christ, ever the diplomat. Any truth in the rumour that your middle name is Victor and you have an affinity for amphibians? 😉🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Yes but if everyone is vaccinated then only 10% get Ill at all, and ~0% get seriously ill so impact to NHS goes away...

Lots of "ifs" there, and where do you get those figures from? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Lots of "ifs" there, and where do you get those figures from? 

Stats are from the trials from the vaccine researchers (Pfizer, AZ). No trialist for either vaccine had serious Covid illness. 10% for Oxford, 6% for Pfizer had some Covid illness.

Edited by joey_big_nose
Link to post
Share on other sites

A&E nurse, 43, catches Covid after his second vaccination was postponed | Daily Mail Online

Nurse gets Covid 3/4 weeks after first dose.  Bit of risk they're taking with this - there's no data re efficacy other than that for the 2 x vaccine shot. And the 2nd shot is no longer guaranteed. 

Covid vaccine: Raab refuses to guarantee everyone will receive second dose | The Independent

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

There is no credible scientific basis for saying the vaccine reduces a person's chance of catching and therefore spreading the virus.

As far as I am aware there are no medical papers stating this.  

The vaccine reduces your chances of getting a serious illness. But you can still catch it. You can still pass it on! 

So we essentially reduce it to as harmful as the flu / common cold? 

 

Also the first paragraph? Is that actually true? I thought the vaccine improves your chances of fighting it off so does that not mean you fight it off quicker and therefore the length of time you are contagious is reduced? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Stats are from the trials from the vaccine researchers (Pfizer, AZ). No trialist for either vaccine had serious Covid illness. 10% for Oxford, 6% for Pfizer had some Covid illness.

The trials were only on small samples I understood. Wasn't the Oxford efficacy overall about 70%?

Having a vaccine will not reduce transmission and will not be the panacea you dream off without effective track and trace and social distancing measures, face masks etc still in place.  The magic vaccine wand is not going to make everything ok again.

From The Lancet: 

Vaccines will be instrumental in the control of Covid-19, but their global distribution will be challenging and their effect won't be immediate. As cases and deaths continue to rise across the world, the non-pharmaceutical interventions to constrain the spread of Covid-19 that the global population has by now become accustomed to will need to remain in place for a while longer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

The trials were only on small samples I understood. Wasn't the Oxford efficacy overall about 70%?

Having a vaccine will not reduce transmission and will not be the panacea you dream off without effective track and trace and social distancing measures, face masks etc still in place.  The magic vaccine wand is not going to make everything ok again.

From The Lancet: 

Vaccines will be instrumental in the control of Covid-19, but their global distribution will be challenging and their effect won't be immediate. As cases and deaths continue to rise across the world, the non-pharmaceutical interventions to constrain the spread of Covid-19 that the global population has by now become accustomed to will need to remain in place for a while longer.

 

I'm just trying to make logical sense of what the key factors are here to make a rational prediction of when things will end. I don't have an issue with an extended lockdown if it's necessary. Nothing magical about it.

The only compelling reasons Ive seen so far why an extended lockdown would be needed is if the virus mutates and evades the vaccines, or if the vaccines are not effective as predicted in preventing serious illness and people end up in hospital. Both would require new vaccines to be issued and put us back months.

If the above two don't happen then, as far as I can tell from what I've read, once you have vaccinated those who drive hospital admissions you should be able to open up gradually. Not sure what you have an issue with in there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile Chris Twit-ty claimed on Friday that we were one week away from the the peak of the latest wave of the virus. Which would place the peak on the 22nd of Jan some 17 days after the latest lockdown started.

Yet more proof that lockdowns and restrictions have precious little effect in arresting transmission of this variant of seasonal flu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Meanwhile Chris Twit-ty claimed on Friday that we were one week away from the the peak of the latest wave of the virus. Which would place the peak on the 22nd of Jan some 17 days after the latest lockdown started.

Yet more proof that lockdowns and restrictions have precious little effect in arresting transmission of this variant of seasonal flu.

Latest wave of hospital admissions I think he said. There's a time lag between infection and admission. 

Your seasonal flu comment is a bit silly and lacking intelligence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.