Forum menu
Not sure its particularly a French thing, half expecting some US case too.
It's a French thing.
The yanks have protected the vaccine manufacturers using the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and rightly so.
I have zero empathy when others lives are at risk.
I tried to book my appointmet this morning via the NHS website and was offered Southampton (105 miles away) and Elland Road Leeds (225 miles away) as my nearest options... I think I'll just wait.
I tried to book my appointmet this morning via the NHS website and was offered Southampton (105 miles away) and Elland Road Leeds (225 miles away) as my nearest options… I think I’ll just wait.
Availability changes quite frequently. When I first looked this morning my nearest appointment was an hour away, when I checked back a few hours later there was availability all next week 10 minutes away.
I have zero empathy when others lives are at risk.
I can have plenty of empathy for anyone who is in a bad place after losing a young relative to possible vaccine complications. Even an extremely rare event is someone's kid/wife/husband. We don't what advice they've been given, or what is motivating the legal action. I doubt this litigation will affect the roll-out, or undermine uptake more than the public statements of various European leaders already have.
We need to be up front about the fact that mass vaccination is not risk-free, and be prepared to acknowledge and put that risk in context for the public as soon as it becomes apparent. If that means that uptake is marginally lower, so be it.
@graham1980 has explained it clearly. All medicines have benefits and risks. Identifying rare risks is the job of post-marketing pharmacovigilence. Pharma takes this very seriously and it is a testament to the success of the process that such a rare event has been noted in such a short time. However, the loss of life from any intervention, especially on an otherwise healthy person is a tragedy. One presumes such a case hinges on per-existing knowledge of such a possibility. Based on the size of toxicology studies prior to human trials, one can confidently say that there will be no evidence. The process is self-fulfilling. Medicines make it to market precisely BECAUSE they have not shown deleterious effects (or the noted effects are measured and balanced against benefit; e.g., oncology). Nobody wants to do harm. Nobody.
I doubt this litigation will affect the roll-out, or undermine uptake more than the public statements of various European leaders already have.
I think it will decrease uptake.
We don’t what advice they’ve been given, or what is motivating the legal action.
But we can make educated guesses. If there were manufacturing problems that make AZ culpable, I would have heard about it by now on the grape vine.
can have plenty of empathy for anyone who is in a bad place after losing a young relative to possible vaccine complications.
Again, putting others lives at risk is where my empathy ends and my indignation starts.
I tried to book my appointmet this morning via the NHS website and was offered Southampton (105 miles away) and Elland Road Leeds (225 miles away) as my nearest options… I think I’ll just wait.
Sites tend to receive their stock allocation confirmation on Thursdays and can’t release bookings until they know how much stock they’ll have, so not all sites will have released next week’s first-dose booking calendars yet. Keep checking every few hours today.
I support those who have lost familly members sueing. In a perfect world there would be a compensation system in place as there is for aircraft crashes with pretty much automatic compensation for victims but there isn't so if you bread winning nurse wife was given the AZ vaccine and it killed her you have no other option than to sue to get compensation.
Drug companies that sell in France know this and price accordingly (as they do in the US). It works like insurance, the companies sell at a price that includes the possibility of being ordered to pay out compensation. There are jurisprudences that show it's a system that works.
I hope the families are adequately compensated.
In my opinion it increases vaccine uptake because it reduces one of the risks associated with being vaccinated. You might be killed or left handicapped by the vaccine but at least your family won't face financial ruin in addition.
Are AZ not supplying at cost in France?
you have no other option than to sue to get compensation.
Which you won't win if you can't prove negligence. But the lawyers will win whatever.
I agree some sort of state backed compensation is how it should be covered.
I think it will decrease uptake.
Hasn't been the case here:
Again, putting others lives at risk is where my empathy ends and my indignation starts.
Save your indignation for the active anti-vaxxers, rather than grieving people trying to navigate the worst days of their lives as best they can. I doubt anyone involved there sees it clearly in terms of 'putting others' lives at risk'.
There will always be people who choose not to receive the vaccine, perhaps for daft reasons, perhaps not, but that is factored into the calculations made beforehand. As it happens, vaccine uptake here has been nothing short of magnificent.
If it is falling short in France, it is the public messaging from the authorities and media which should be blamed.
Anyhow for the moment "le parquet de Paris saisi" says Ouest France. The best way to translate it is to say that manslaughter has been reported to the judicial system so for the moment nobody is sueing anybody.
If that charge is considered valid it will be tried and if successful the family can seek compensation. Whether that would be from the French state or the vaccine makers I've no idea.
There is no lack of uptake in France only queues of people at vaccination centres that have a policy of using up left-over doses from the day's official list to vaccinate younger people. The quacks that have happened so far have mainly been caused by not dropping the age group fast enough or not having enough people on last-minute lists. The organisation hasn't been perfect but that doesn't mean there is a shortage of candidates for vaccination.
In my opinion it increases vaccine uptake because it reduces one of the risks associated with being vaccinated. You might be killed or left handicapped by the vaccine but at least your family won’t face financial ruin in addition
That’s what life insurance is for.
You can be sued for negligence in any country, but that’s not what we’re talking about here is it. We’re talking about suing for a unknown unknown, there was no negligence.
If everyone had your attitude, we’d have a lot less investment in drug research.
The French already lose their shit at the cost of many drugs, you’re saying you want more expensive drugs?
Genius.
You think a meical student can afford life insurance. You think young nurses can afford life insurance.
The French system is vaguely socialist, you know, that crazy idea of the welfare state, looking after each other, helpin people too poor to help themselves. It's great. It includes the idea that if people are adversly inpacted by the state they can attack the state judicially and get compensation. There's a European court to go to too if people aren't satisfied with the French system.
Under your system, OakleyMuppet pharma companies would be free to poison people with impunity. They need to be held accountable for their products, and the state should be accountable when it encourages people to use those products.
You are getting distinctly xenophobic with this emotional outburst against the French. Others have pointed out its only families of victims but you are having a general anti-French rant criticising a system that you don't appear to understand and which works, a hell of lot better than you perhaps realise.
There is no lack of uptake in France only queues of people at vaccination centres
Really?
I have a few questions buzzing around my head...
If a vaccine is designed to suppress symptoms could you say a vaccinated person with covid is asymptomatic?
Are asymptomatic people less likely to spread the virus because they shed less?
Does the pcr test or lft detect sars-cov-2 or covid? Or both?
Do we know the percentage of people who contract sars-cov-2 develop covid?
Are under 30s overwhelming likely to be asymptomatic and thus shed less and possibly pose a similar transmission risk as a vaccinated person?
No trolling just questions I have.
You think a meical student can afford life insurance. You think young nurses can afford life insurance
Yup. If they are that bothered about suddenly leaving family members financially screwed - as there are a lot more likely ways to die.
Or maybe the French state should provide that insurance at the taxpayers expense. Either way it’s not up to pharma.
So you want the cost of bicycles to cover insurance against getting run over?
Under your system, OakleyMuppet pharma companies would be free to poison people with impunity
They are not immune normally, negligence when manufacturing or failing to carry out pharmacovigilance will get them in trouble. Adverse effects not being spotted by regulatory approved trials, is not negligence it’s bad luck and the responsibility lies with the French medicines agency for approving it.
The vaccine isn't designed to suppress symptoms it is designed to let your body prevent infection (ideally) or reduce disease burden by reducing the time that someone is infected.
That isn't too say that a vaccine won't reduce symptoms but that isn't the primary aim.
Someone vaccinated can get infected and could be either asymptomatic or symptomatic.
If you reframe your question to ask are vaccinated people less likely to shed virus or a reduced level of virus then the answer is probably yes, there have been studies that looked at transmission levels in the vaccinated population and these are reduced by between 30-50% which would indicate that someone hasn't got a level of virus present that lets them pass on the virus.
If i remember correctly studies done earlier on showed no significant difference in viral load between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients (but i might be completely out of date on that now) so i wouldn't compare vaccinated to asymptomatic.
It does happily seem to be that the vaccines do cause the disease severity to be reduced.
I haven't seen any data on vaccinated against asymptomatic risk of transmission but i would believe that the asymptomatic would be higher as the vaccine should reduce viral load and therefore the risk of expelling virus by breathing or coughing.
I hope those ramblings make sense
You are confusing the number of people who are anti-vax and the number of people who are anti-AZ, OakleyMuppet. Myself and Madame did a lot of research and took a calculated risk in opting for AZ a couple of weeks back rather than Pfizer for which we are now in the corresponding group.
Many of those questioned about AZ will never be offered it because they are aged under 55 so those figures are misleading. AZ is 1 seriously ill for 100 000 and 2 dead per million. With Pfizer and Moderna the risks are lower. A more dangerous vaccine is never going to be more popular. The French understand than and decide which vaccine to have when on th ebasis of their persoanl circumstances.
We've already covered the risk : reward caculation in previous pages and concluded that if you know you're only going to have to wait a few weeks longer for many people it's safer to wait for Pfizer or Moderna. Madame is a teacher and wanted to go back to work on Monday with a vaccine already giving 80% cover so accepted AZ, if she'd been on home working she'd have waited. If I din't live with a teacher, swim regularly, socialise within the rules, maybe I'd have waited too. In fact I wouldn't because there were some reports (which my experience supports) of AZ significantly reducing the symptoms of long Covid, I wanted AZ, only Madame was hesitant.
The French aren't stupid, they're making rational decisions and choices on the basis of information provided with a high degree of transparency by the authorities. Ultimately this will lead to a higher level of vaccination than if the relationship of trust broke down.
We’ve already covered the risk : reward caculation in previous pages and concluded that if you know you’re only going to have to wait a few weeks longer for many people it’s safer to wait for Pfizer or Moderna.
Isn't there also an element of what you think you're more susceptible to? Blood clots/platelets vs. Anaphylaxis? My wife went with AZ because of this.
By coincidence, after asking about how 2nd jab appointments work, got the text from the GP to book it 👍🏻
Approximately speaking:
240 cases of clots with AZ, 44 deaths in 24 million vaccinations. Just saying. Pfizer has been linked to heart irregularities also, so do we go Moderna only? Where does the madness stop.
.
Approximately speaking:
240 cases of clots with AZ, 44 deaths in 24 million vaccinations. Just saying. Pfizer has been linked to heart irregularities also, so do we go Moderna only? Where does the madness stop.
I spoted this earlier this week
How should people under 30 weigh the benefits and drawbacks?
For healthy people under 30, the health risks from catching covid-19 are low, but there may be a slightly higher rate of the blood clot condition in younger people. So, the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has said the risk-benefit equation is “more finely balanced” for this group. That means that for people under 30, the chance of the vaccine causing the clotting reaction is a little greater than the risk of severe illness from covid-19.
The problem with definitive statements around transmission reduction is that you need a hell of a lot of data to be absolutely sure.
That is what is taking the time to collect.
The reason for vaccinating the under 40's is both transmission reduction and also it is worth it if it reduces the disease burden to maybe a few days of feeling ropey against needing hospital treatment, or maybe long covid.
The vaccinations are not just about preventing death, the level of impact from disease at lower levels of severity can now be considered simply because less people are at risk of death
To put a financial level on it. 2 doses of pfizer =£50 compared against a week of sick leave ~£96 is statutory sick pay, not counting the impact on the employers
This is complete bollocks
No it's not but you are so blinded by your irrational prejudice you fail to seee it.
From your own link:
Around 42% of French respondents thought the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab unsafe in a YouGov survey last month.
The article is Astra Zeneca specific. An ever increasing proportion of the French polulation intends to get vaccinated, I watch the news every night. It's just AZ that many don't want, but so far they've been able to use the AZ deliveries recieved which is soemwhat les than originally promised.
240 cases of clots with AZ, 44 deaths in 24 million vaccinations. Just saying. Pfizer has been linked to heart irregularities also, so do we go Moderna only? Where does the madness stop.
I'm not sure of the numbers but I suspect they will all end up causing blood clots at relatively the same rates when the data becomes clearer.
In which case, the French, the EU and the EMA will look fairly ridiculous having shot their own already poor vaccine programme in the foot.
Cite
Here we go with you calling me a liar again:
The Astra Zeneca "drama" is making people choose other vaccines in a country that offers people a choice of vaccine. Sensible people that we are, we make intelligent rational choices.
You're just on an anti-French rant oakleyMuppet and you're clearly embarrasing the non-xenophobic STW members on this thread. I suggest you stop.
Under your system, OakleyMuppet pharma companies would be free to poison people with impunity. They need to be held accountable for their products, and the state should be accountable when it encourages people to use those products.
Whilst others are getting some air.... I'd like to call this out as utter horseshit.
There is a system in place for drug development:
National (and European) regulators - the national health ministries etc, decide what burden of proof is required for a drug to be awarded a licence in their jurisdiction.
When a marketing (licence) application is made by a Pharma company to a regulator, the regulator reviews ALL of the data, does audits of the trials etc, and decides whether a licence should be granted, and on what basis.
This last bit (on what basis) is commonly referred to as "the label". It's basically the set of conditions for what particular kind of patient should get this drug. This will take into account the subset of patients for which the drug is most effective (ie: who receive the most benefit), and seek to exclude any patients for whom the drug hasn't been shown to work, or might be harmed by taking the drug.
If there is insufficient data that the drug actually works or is safe, you just won't get a licence at all - or the licence will be so restrictive (in terms of who should and shouldn't be given the drug) that it won't make any money.
If somebody dies from an unknown side effect from a drug, the only recourse that the victim's family have is with the regulator - as it's them that decide whether a drug is safe or not, and whether the data submitted is sufficient to make that determination.
The exception is if the Pharma company developing the drug concealed (or didn't notice) data that would have made a difference to the regulators determination. That would be negligence (or worse) and the whole Pharma sector would cheer as the individuals responsible got the book thrown at them.
Nobody is "poisoning" anybody
Plus to add to what batfink said.
If a company is found to be selling off label then they will get hammered in fines and additional reporting requirements, justifiably so.
The exception is if the Pharma company developing the drug concealed (or didn’t notice) data that would have made a difference to the regulators determination. That
And guess which pharma company is down with concealing data...
https://www.reuters.com/article/europe-drugs-transparency-idUSL5N0F022G20130624
^ I think thats a stretch. I mean deliberately hiding data from regulators that would jeopardise or disadvantage their label.
In this case, the idea that AZ somehow knew about the clotting issue, but "covered it up".
I used to work for Sanofi. It was awesome - we had 1664 on tap in the canteen.
It was awesome – we had 1664 on tap in the canteen.
This explains a lot.
*throws pen at the Sanofi guy*
f" alt="" />
In this case, the idea that AZ somehow knew about the clotting issue, but “covered it up”.
I wasn't talking about AZ 😛
^ I think thats a stretch. I mean deliberately hiding data from regulators that would jeopardise or disadvantage their label.
https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2021/02/16/bristol-myers-sanofi-hawaii-plavix/
Nobody is “poisoning” anybody
Check out the Mediator saga, that in simple language is what the Servier lab was prosecuted for. And a clear demonstration why approval of a drug should not give labs impunity. There was much debate about responsibility in the case of adverse reactions to the vaccines before the EU signed the contracts with the vaccine makers.
Yes – because they covered up trial data,
That is absolutely not the reason for prosectution. Here's a summary:
https://sante.journaldesfemmes.fr/quotidien/2565312-mediator-medicament-laboratoire-servier-scandale-verdict-proces-nombre-mort-effets-secondaires/
not the regulator
Actually, in that example - very much the regulator. The main issue was that the drug was found to be unsafe in other countries, but the French inexplicably allowed it to, not just continue to be sold, but heavily reimbursed by the public health system.
Combined with the fact that it was widely being prescribed and promoted off label - another regulatory failure.
Don’t know all the specifics, and I’m not defending anyone, but it’s hard to argue data was concealed when it was obviously available to other regulators who banned it much sooner.
Give up with the French bashing, there have been numerous cases of pharma companies around the world getting their arses handed to them by regulators.
Gsk, novartis (should have been more over the zolgensma thing), pfizer (off label drugs), perdue, the list goes on sadly.
But a lot have bad some massive changes to corporate governance over the last 10 years. They have had to
The Mediator saga is one of a long list of pharma giants behaving unethically and regulators being slow to react. Here are a few:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements
I'm sorry but
Servier laboratories to 2.7 million euros fine for "aggravated deception" by having " knowingly concealed the" appetite suppressant "properties and dangerous side effects " of the drug. " Despite the knowledge that they had the risks incurred for many years, (...) they never took the necessary measures and thus deceived " the consumers of the Mediator, declared the president of the criminal court
Sounds very much like withholding pharmacovigilance data. But Batfink appears to know more about the history of that scandal. Not a good look for the ANSM is it!
he Mediator saga is one of a long list of pharma giants behaving unethically and regulators being slow to react. Here are a few:
Most of those are anti-trust and corruption findings due to the insane way medicines are promoted in the good ole USA. Which I've never quite wrapped my head around, they have a system that encourages this behavior.
Not so many of the companies that have a thing for releasing bad medicines or falsifying data are covered in that list.
there have been numerous cases of pharma companies around the world getting their arses handed to them by regulators.
Gsk, novartis (should have been more over the zolgensma thing), pfizer (off label drugs), perdue, the list goes on sadly.
Agreed.
I will add this though
Gilead, Sanofi singled out as worst offenders in failing to disclose trial data
A quick quiz, which country gave the UK Thalidomide and Primados?
Did the victims of those drugs deserve compensation? I think so. I also think the families of those left handicapped or dead by vaccination deserve compensation.
Did the victims of those drugs deserve compensation? I think so. I also think the families of those left handicapped or dead by vaccination deserve compensation.
Comparing the Thalidomide scandal, which was a regulatory failure as much as Grünenthal's fault - to a few unexpected adverse reactions where everything that is legally required was done to protect the patient - is as hilarious as it is offensive.
What was your pseudo before September, OakleyMuppet?
You can't seriously be comparing the Thalidomide scandal to the clotting adverse events that are being seen across multiple suppliers (suggesting that there is no malfeasance going on)?
These incidents are different on so many levels that I can barely be arsed to even type this response.
Can we stop this now please? It's not our legal system. It's not our loved ones that have died (thoughts still with CountZero, of course). It's an odd thing to be banging a gong about. Let the families that have lost people in France pursue redress in whatever way is available to them, even if we are sure we wouldn't do so ourselves in the same situation, and let's leave it at that. Criticise them if you want, but don't condemn them. And definitely don't lay it at the feet of "The French", as if we're in an episode of Fawlty Towers. I have no idea why all the ranting about Sanofi anyway, they haven't even got their own vaccination over the finish line yet... I have no idea why they are relevant, apart from being "The French". They are partnering with others to use their facilities for production though... which is needed and welcomed, looking at the international situation right now.
I'm saying people handicapped by the vaccine should be compensated and so should the families of those killed. And since then you've had an anti-French, anti-French pharma, anti-French regulator, anti-French government policy, anti-French... rant.
I've given well-known examples to show there are precedents and that people don't have to rely on "life insurance" as you suggested on the previous page.
I can barely be arsed to even type this response.
Don't then. 🙂
Thalidomide has to be considered against the regulatory environment at that time.
GMP basically didn't exist, GCP has a rough outline of expectations based on the nuremburg trials (the declaration of Helsinki didn't exist until 1964 which set the framework for clinical trials).
The US got incredibly lucky by having someone like Frances Kelsey reviewing it.
Medicines regulation is totally different now and keeps evolving (the changes that will come off the back of covid will be significant).
Can you both just stop it please, if people have the choice of vaccines then that is great and more power to them, but get a grip and look at what is happening in India for when poor bastards have no chance
I’m saying people handicapped by the vaccine should be compensated and so should the families of those killed
A vaccine provided at cost so not really comparable to normal products brought to market to attain profit.
Another subject maybe? Does anyone know any more about airlines and vaccine passports? Discussing with family in Florida today that they've passed a bill there to ban them.
So does that mean it's now impossible for an airline to agree on a reciprocal agreement for flights between FL and the UK for the foreseeable?
Worst case we can meet up in another state I guess (which I'd actually prefer 🙂)
And definitely don’t lay it at the feet of “The French”, as if we’re in an episode of Fawlty Towers
He may have mentioned them once, but I think he got away with it....
Can you both just stop it please, if people have the choice of vaccines then that is great and more power to them, but get a grip and look at what is happening in India for when poor bastards have no chance
I'm not even sure where to start on India, the situation seems so FUBAR that I'm not sure what could be done now? Other than to send what equipment we can and Naval ships to ferry patients and free up beds - seems like pissing in the wind though.
Came on to ask something but I think i'll come back when it's calmer.
Will do Graham, Kelvin and Sefton. I don't often feed the troll but on this occasion wanted to give OakleyMuppet every possible oportunity to express his prejudices. I think that's done now so I'll dip out and come back when I've something that may be of interest on Covid to add.
OakleyMuppet rocked up in September knowing us all a bit too well.
Interesting article in the Grauniad about India - "FUBAR" looks like a massive understatement 🙁
Say what you like mate. Its a public forum (and thread)
That article about India is an eye opener, jeez.
There's definitely a connection between corrupt right wing regimes and a devastating Covid rate.
Yep, UK, US, India, Brazil & Mexico have all messed this up
To be honest I’m worried about a lot of developing countries. They can’t afford to keep up the lockdowns whilst the west vaccinates itself, India is just the start I’m afraid.
The US got incredibly lucky by having someone like Frances Kelsey reviewing it.
Medicines regulation is totally different now and keeps evolving (the changes that will come off the back of covid will be significant).
As a point of information, it was NOT teratogenicity that kept thalidomide out of the US. It was a signal in peripheral neuropathy. They were lucky. Thalidomide passed every required safety assessment of the time. Now there are more assessments. One of the more recent is for QTc prolongation. Some drugs bind to and block the hERG channel that extends repolarisation of cardiac myocytes. Extending too much leads to, well Torsades de Points and death.
Say what you like mate. Its a public forum (and thread)
This. You'll only get reasoned debate and geeky science from me 😉
That article about India is an eye opener, jeez.
Quite a lot of the people I worked with are based in India.
Been getting notification after notification that someone is off either sick or mourning. Admittedly they are concentrated in Gurgaon and Mumbai but its on a completely different scale to anything from what I saw with the UK and USA teams.
I would urge anyone who has soapbox to stand on regarding vaccines and risk takes a good look back at Tired's posts.
How can the post-vaccine admissions be more than all admissions?
Post Vaccine is the absolute number as per the CO-CIN graph. The scale on the right.
Total UK is per 100,000 - scale on the left.
Thanks
Have you seen my reading glasses anywhere?
-Total UK Admissions are plotted per 100,000 from 28th Jan to 12th April - This is 75 Days. Data source is the NHS
-Hospital Admissions After Vaccine ( This is the absolute number )- This is also 75 days . The data is taken from the CO-CIN Study. Day 1 = 75 and then declining 3.1% per day for the first 25 days taking cases to 35 the same as the CO-CIN study. ( I have ignored the increase in cases as I believe that is due to people reducing their social distancing after vaccination ) From day 25 I have the plotted a daily decline of 4% which means at day 50 there are 12.5 cases ( Same as the Co-CIN graph looking a few days both side and averaging ) and at 75 days there are 5 cases, again same as the CO-CIN Study.
This comparison suggests that hospital admissions are dropping at the same rate for people with and without vaccination.
Plot it on a semi log plot. Will look much nicer. The common rate would be expected. It’s a reflection of the community force of infection and the fact that this is in both naive unvaccinated and those vaccinated but not yet protected.
Tired, I agree in that context.
CO-CIN did say this in bold text in their document:
Important caveat. The risk of exposure has reduced since early January so the progressively lower number of PCR positive symptomatic cases admitted to hospital after vaccination is likely to under-represent a signal of vaccine failure.
I work in QA
Oh of course!! Raybanwomble = Oakleymuppet...Welcome back..
I am coming across, what seems, a growing number of folks who fall into more than one of the following camps:
1. The vaccine will mutate our DNA - it can’t the RNA component is inactive & never penetrates into our DNA.
2. The lockdown wasn’t necessary as COVID isn’t that deadly because folks didn’t die in the numbers that was expected - why the F do you think that is Einstein?
3. There is some kind of conspiracy - how else did they manage to create a vaccine so quickly? Because that’s what humanity can achieve when there’s a global effort.
4. Bill Gates is evil & in on it. He’s got too much money & should give it all away. No, BG does a huge amount of philanthropic work & plans to give away nearly all his wealth on his death. He took a punt on several different vaccines at no profit to himself purely because he’s a decent sort.
It’s no 2 where I particularly lose patience with this kind of thinking. The absolute & total inability to believe the evidence of ones own eyes. Couple that with the ease of which they believe BS conspiracy theories with little or no evidence at all.
F me is all I can say - the Worlds gone mad!
@mrkebowski You would think these people from point 2 only have to look at what is happening in India right now to see the consequences of not having strict lockdowns.
You would think these people from point 2 only have to look at what is happening in India right now to see the consequences of not having strict lockdowns.
Indeed. In-bloody-deed!
@mrkebowski You would think these people from point 2 only have to look at what is happening in India right now to see the consequences of not having strict lockdowns.
Unfortunately not. Disinfo Twitter (I have a list) has gone into overdrive explaining India. Watched a video the other day of a brit lady who lives in India, sat in a nice smart SUV, picking up a takeaway, panning the camera around saying it's all a hoax. All the TV footage is of people sleeping on the streets she claimed.
Vaccine stuff is crazy too. A 966% increase in miscarriages is a common claim, or conflating the GM mosquitos with Pfizer.
Loads of great reset stuff, QAnon over here, Bill Gates...
And this is all normal folks, posting on normal accounts. So and so, a chartered accountant from Berkshire. I reply sometimes. Never ends well, I just have to walk away and get some fresh air.
The only one I come across in real life is the type 2, thankfully, and "India" seems to silence them.
Just spoken to my Dad, who lives in southern Oregon, USA.
They’ve just gone back into a form of lockdown due to a surge in cases https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-04-30/oregon-covid-surge-vaccine
45% of Oregon residents have one vaccine shot and 26% have had two.
Is this likely to happen here after May 17th?
mrlebowski
Free Member2. The lockdown wasn’t necessary as COVID isn’t that deadly because folks didn’t die in the numbers that was expected – why the F do you think that is Einstein?
Is there a name for this phenomenon? It's so depressing- "We've spotted an issue, it'll be terrible, we need to act on it". We act on it "Ah it was all a load of rubbish, it wasn't as bad as you said". Yes because we acted on it. Millenium bug, covid, brexit to some extent, the people who save our arses get castigated for the fact that our arses were saved.
Is there a name for this phenomenon?
Bellendery?
AssHat Fever?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56904993
One dose of vaccine halves transmission. Most of the population has had a first jab.
Also there were only 7 covid deaths today.
There is zero chance of the NHS being overwhelmed now.
Why are we waiting two weeks still to open more of the economy? Businesses are closing daily...
The caution is pretty obviously wise (unless you’ve slept through the mistakes of the last year, both here and abroad). Help for businesses should be more forthcoming.
Is this likely to happen here after May 17th?
I doubt it, we’re opening up in a very steady way, to avoid having to back track fast like that.
Later in the year new variants might change this, but we are following the right path to help reduce the chance of that happening in the UK, and we know how to stop them being introduced from elsewhere over the summer (hopefully we’ll choose to do so).
The next crunch point for us should be the winter, and the government are well in their way to having booster shots ready for then, so I think we can all be hopeful (but avoid being reckless about things, with the international pandemic still play out over the next year).