Forum menu
That doesn’t surprise me at all going by "the typical pensioner in the uk.. Basically they know best, had it worst, no one can tell them what to do. Just a massive sense of entitlement. At the height of the summer lockdown a 75yr old husband and wife (husband has parkinsons) in my street decided to have a street party handing out drinks to who ever walked past.
Where do you want to stop with this type of generalisation?
Shall I start to generalise on " the typical 21 to 30s" or " the typical 31 to 40s" etc,etc
Give it a rest.
The more appropriate word would be "Some".
In answer to questions: nothing illegal, given the dates highly unlikely to have been vaccinated, and given the dates no PCR test was required to travel. Just becuase there's nothing to legally stop you doing something doesn't mean you should. Suicide is perfectly legal here.
The people at all those raves you linked were between 30 and 150 times less likely to require hospital treatment in the event of catching the virus, Scotroutes.
It's the virus that is ageist, society's approach to dealing with it is too, vaccinating none of the youngest and all of the oldest (who wish to be).
People need to take their own age into consideration when indulging in the higher risk activities still possible legally, because morally some of them aren't. Being unmasked in a large group of your non-vaccinated peers when you are old is not illegal here but it flys in the face of everything everybody in society who does give a shit is trying to achieve.
The people at all those raves you linked were between 30 and 150 times less likely to require hospital treatment in the event of catching the virus, Scotroutes.
Where to start?
Ach, **** it. Cannae be arsed dealing with this shit.
Hey kids, can't we play nicely?
There are people across all the age groups being selfish arseholes.
Jonathan Ashworth being very unhelpful with his “this must be the last lockdown” call. The government needs the flexibility to respond to what happens as we go through the next 12 months. Making it politically harder for the government to reintroduce controls in the face of new variants, or high levels of infection while vaccine rollout is ongoing, really isn’t welcome.
Edukator : The people at all those raves you linked were between 30 and 150 times less likely to require hospital treatment in the event of catching the virus, Scotroutes.
Perhaps so but what about the consequences of those selfish pricks coming into contact and passing on the virus with those who are not so fortunate?.
Dunno if it’s been covered but there is a somewhat obvious correlation between those that pushed for Brexit and the Covid Recovery Group
If we don't have a lock down next winter I'll be bloody surprised. That might, might be the last one. Variants allowing.
That's the point isn't it, as said, there are still so many unknowns that to rule out another lockdown is insane and deeply misleading to the public. **** the CRG, one and all.😐
To clarify, no I don't like them either! No one in this thread does. I accept they have been necessary though and might be again.
Good isn’t it?!?
Absolutely! The queue yesterday seemed to be like an endless conveyor belt of people, I got to the surgery about 30 minutes early, asked the person checking temperatures if that mattered, she said that if I joined the end of the queue then, I’d probably get on on time, and she was right, I got my jab at the booked time almost to the minute.
It was very well organised, and running very smoothly, credit to the whole team involved.
I’ve not noticed any significant aching or tenderness to my arm, quite different to my last flu jab, which was very tender and uncomfortable for several days.
Some things I’ve read seem to show some concern that a Covid jab may become a once a year necessity, but so what, it’s become a fact of life that you get a flu jab every year, so why should it be any more of an imposition getting a Covid jab to protect against something that’s more dangerous?
There’s some early research that shows there might be a chance that a panCorona jab may be possible, that could prove effective against Corona viruses in general; hurrah, finally a cure for the common cold in its variations!
If we don’t have a lock down next winter I’ll be bloody surprised. That might, might be the last one. Variants allowing.
That’s the point isn’t it, as said, there are still so many unknowns that to rule out another lockdown is insane and deeply misleading to the public. **** the CRG, one and all.😐
Absolutely. I have noticed that anything to do with the Tory backbenchers that is collectively called a Research Group (ERG, CRG) only has one interest to consider: theirs. If the CRG say they need to declare this lockdown as the last one then we should just do the opposite.
That’s the point isn’t it, as said, there are still so many unknowns that to rule out another lockdown is insane and deeply misleading to the public. **** the CRG, one and all.
Agreed, but Jonathan Ashworth is in the Labour shadow cabinet.
kelvin
Agreed, but Jonathan Ashworth is in the Labour shadow cabinet.
Yep, pretty amazing really. I'm really not sure which way Labour are heading these days and not just on the Covid response. They are lagging in the poles agsin... after 100k+ lives have been taken in party due to this governments incredible ineptitude. Amazing really. All forgotten because of the great vaccine roll out. (Good bless the NHS and all who sail in her, you are everybody's valentine this year.)
The lives taken and families torn apart already flowing into recent history.
Antipodean update:
Victoria have reported only one new locally acquired case in the last 24 hours - apparently she attended a family gathering with somebody linked to the new airport cluster. She was one of some 6,000 people identified by contract tracers as "close contacts" of those known to be infected. Interestingly, she was/is completely asymptomatic, and has had 4 tests over the weekend that have returned both weak positive and weak negative tests, so she has been declared positive.
Meanwhile, Auckland (Yes IN NEW ZEALAND errrhmergerd!) has had 3 new cases - and so has locked down hard from Sunday night (with the rest of NZ in "medium" lockdown). Apparently all 3 cases are in one family - with the mum working at an airline related business, so it looks like that might be how it got in, but they are trying to figure that out right now. Australia has responded by re-instating the mandatory 14 day quarantine for NZ arrivals into Aus - the only country who's arrivals didn't need to quarantine on arrival.
NSW have now hit 28 days without any locally acquired infections - mask rules have been relaxed - you only need one for public transport now I think. Happy days.
Both NZ and Australia are due to receive the first Pfizer vaccine shipments this week I think.
It should be interesting for the UK too - running a quarantine system is HARD, and even with one that's been running for almost a year, with continuous improvements and "upgrades", and with (relatively) tiny arrival numbers..... you can't be asleep at the wheel for a second.
People with learning disabilities have been given do not resuscitate orders during the second wave of the pandemic, in spite of widespread condemnation of the practice last year and an urgent investigation by the care watchdog.
^ hmmmmmmmmm, very disturbing if true
However, not sure how helpful the term "learning disability" is in this context - I would imagine that's an extremely broad population. I suspect that underlying this is the (extremely uncomfortable) truth that people with specific concurrent medical conditions are being flagged as DNR - as they were in Italy when their hospitals became completely over-run. Hard choices had to be made about who to choose to (try to save) and who to let die. Reading the accounts of those doctors making those choices scared the hell out of me, and is what "flattening the curve" is all about.
Arbitrarily assigning DNR status to somebody with learning difficulties is obviously barbaric, and needs to be urgently addressed... but I suspect that there's more to it than that.
Perhaps so but what about the consequences of those selfish pricks coming into contact and passing on the virus with those who are not so fortunate?.
Well they won't if those who are not so fortunate look after themselves. The retired don't need to come into contact with anyone in this technological age and certainy not the rave clan. I may have mentioned that junior is a DJ and producer and very much part of his generation. He plays by the rules and didn't go to the rave in Rennes despite being only a few kms away at the time. But his generation are are lot less selfish than you claim, they don't go hugging their grand parents, they don't go to raves if they are key workers. They are a lot more socially responsible than you give them credit for.
He's self-isolated before coming to see us but still nearly got caught out once - because his colleague's family went to a funeral. Raves are banned, funerals are not, and you don't have journalists and gendarmes counting people at funerals and mass testing them before they are allowed home.
The British media made a fuss about 2500 people at a rave in Rennes. You no doubt remember all the fuss, well how many tested positve at the mass testing before they were aloowed to go home? Zero. A big fat zero. You know how many have tested positive after religious services since the start of the pandemic here: hundreds, thousands and the numbers continue to rise, and the church goers fall into age categories that fill hospital beds. How many articles in the press have you read demonising them.
Some on this thread wish to brush the age issue under the carpet and avoid intergenerational comflict. In which case the older generation need to take some responsibility for their own health and stop demonising the young who have made only a tiny contribution to filling hospital beds which is what has brought the economy to a crawl.
Bad flu years are deadly but they don't cause economic misery because they don't over load the hospitals. The problem with theis virus is that overflowing hospitials make it so visible. The 1969 flu season killed 30 000 in France, maybe more as they didn't have the equivalent of a PCR test to check the victims. Measures taken? Next to nothing.
I could go out with my MTB club of 45-65 year olds, I don't, I'm in an age group that could end up taking a hospital bed.
I could meet meet up for music practice with mates of the same age group, we've decided not to, we're old enough to be vulnerable.
But the restrictions on the younger generation, turning halls of residence into prisons etc. I find totally over the top.
The virus is ageist, the virus discriminates, and those it spares are disciminated against in the press.
If ravers who are unlikely ever to need a hopital bed if they catch the virus are "selfish pricks", how do you describe 30 old people at a funeral who will need half a dozen hospital beds if they all catch the virus?
I expect further outrage from the 58 to 75 year olds on this forum, think before you type, or ban me you misearble old mod... 😉
Bad flu years do fill the hospital beds, we've had a few here in recent years but the media weren't interested as it didn't involve Brexit, celebrities or breasts.
"Fill", but I said "overload/overflow". The bad flu years don't have doctors talking about triage on the news, queues of ambulances, TGVs converted to transfer patients, people lying dead in hospital corridors, Nightigale hopitals, Peruvians selling oxygen bottles in the street to the highest bidder.
It's been a media festival that the public and governments haven't been able to ignore. everyone has an opinion (me included) everyone feels involved. Everyone is involved. Masks in pockets when they're not on our faces, 42km on the balcony, calculating how far we can walk and still get back before curfew.
Extreme images and extreme reactions.
42km on the balcony,
What are you talking about?
House arrest in France, walking 42km on a small balcony?
People getting exercise when they weren't allowed to leave their homes?
An Italian ran a marathon 42km on his balcony during the Italian lockdown, it made the news here along with various other confinement exploits. TF1 in particular tried/tries to show some lighthearted moments to counter the general morosity. They were at Beille recently where there haven't been so many people X-C sking since the 80s. Talking of which, it's sunny out, ski time.
I'm getting really tired of the age argument.
We often see news articles about people breaking the restrictions on numbers at funerals, like we do for weddings, and house parties, and raves.
Being a selfish/careless idiot is not an age specific problem so can we please acknowledge it and move on now.
The British media made a fuss about 2500 people at a rave in Rennes. You no doubt remember all the fuss, well how many tested positve at the mass testing before they were aloowed to go home? Zero. A big fat zero
If you are trying to imply that young people don’t catch and transmit the virus then you are, of course, wrong. If you believe that it is easy to isolate one age group from interaction from all the others then I’m afraid that the reality of it is that you are wrong, again.
The retired don’t need to come into contact with anyone in this technological age
Am I reading that right?
*backs quietly out of the thread having seen edukator back in the room*
*walks into thread, wonders where Matt is off to, looks around and follows Matt*
Which reminds me.... when is that ignore member button arriving?
You don't have to agree with all of what Edukator says, but few would argue that whilst the virus disproportionately affects the old, the measures to contain it have disproportionately affected the young.
I personally think a there needs to be a discussion at some point around how the elderly/vulnerable can be kept safe whilst allowing the groups of people that are least affected to get on with their lives. That to me seems like a reasonably sensible thing to do.
I don't think we should be attacking certain groups, but again, people do need to take some personal responsibility. If you are in a vulnerable group should you be more careful? Yes, you should. I personally see more groups of older folk gathering in the park than younger folk, that's not good IMO, that's not weighing up the risks and making good decisions. If they were groups of younger folks I'd have less of an issue as the risk to them is so much less.
I personally think a there needs to be a discussion at some point around how the elderly/vulnerable can be kept safe whilst allowing the groups of people that are least affected to get on with their lives.
Its the elephant in the room.
The discussion we should be having, but nobody wants to because its uncomfortable.
If you are in a vulnerable group should you be more careful? Yes, you should.
Of the same opinion.
If we have a group of people who are severely allergic to nuts, do we remove nuts completely from society?
No.
We put in place measures to protect those people, but allow the rest of the population to live their lives as normal as possible
Exactly as lunge says.
Everyone should be being careful irrespective of age or risk. But those at risk should at least be aware that they beat some responsibility for their own safety too.
We should be protecting the most vulnerable and we are at the moment. It remains to be seen what happens when we start opening up.
But there will be issues if we get lots of stories of people who have had the vaccine (whatever age) start clearing off on holiday while the majority have no chance of it. At that point restrictions might as well be over as a fair number of people will just get pissed off
If the variants of interest are in the community (they are) and contact restrictions are relaxed (they will be), then expect spread of the new variants. Is this serious? Personally I am not filled with the doom of others. Certainly the E484K mutation of the SA strain is of interest - it renders binding of some antibodies (including Lilly's banlanivimab) ineffectual. As in totally non-functional. But human immune systems produce MANY antibodies of ALL different effectiveness from potent to impotent. Pharma chose the low-hanging most potent antibodies first (and they have been dosing two as a cocktail to mitigate resistance to one).
Data from sera from the vaccinated (mainly Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech to be fair) shows a reduction in titer - you need about 6x as much antibody to neutralize the SA strain as the first strain, and about 2x as much for the UK strain. Not 60x, not 600x and not 6000x! The clinical studies of the vaccines in SA have not shown complete failure - they showed significant reduction in asymptomatic protection - so some symptoms but no serious disease and hospitalizations. This is very good news(TM).
So I predict further vaccine coverage, an increase in SA E484K strain as we relax constraints, but steady or falling hospitalizations as coverage increases, in line with falling deaths, notably in the elderly.
[tl:dr] Immune responses from vaccines against the newer strains of concern may lead to some symptoms, but are likely to be good enough to protect against serious disease, and that is what matters most.
This thread is a lot better when we're not tossing around accusations at arbitrarily decided groups of people. Rule 1 for everyone.
This is an interesting improvement on treatment, 60% reduction in death and significant reduction in icu use from a vitamin 6 treatment for kidney issues
https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/using-vitamin-d-treat-covid-patients-can-reduce-death-60-new-study-finds-3134989
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3771318#
But it is an amazing improvement on survival and even keeping people out of intensive care.
Immune responses from vaccines against the newer strains of concern may lead to some symptoms, but are likely to be good enough to protect against serious disease, and that is what matters most.
Could you give give us a definition of "protect against serious disease" to fit with that summary...? Do you just mean avoid hospitalisation, or avoid long term ill health?
This is an interesting improvement on treatment
Yes. Successful Calcifediol treatment trials were covered on page 650. I'm unconvinced that the journalists and commentators taking it as proof of the efficacy of pre-emptively taking VitD are right... but taking VitD in the winter is useful and harmless anyway... so crack on.
Its the elephant in the room.
The discussion we should be having, but nobody wants to because its uncomfortable.
It's been discussed at length... and the government have rightly rejected it as it is bobbins... those most at risk can not be entirely cut off from the rest of society... it is fantasy/fallacy. Protecting them with prioritisation in the vaccine roll out makes far more sense. And all of us trying to keep the virus under control while that is ongoing is effective.
I personally think a there needs to be a discussion at some point around how the elderly/vulnerable can be kept safe whilst allowing the groups of people that are least affected to get on with their lives. That to me seems like a reasonably sensible thing to do.
Reading between the lines of the today's CRG utterances and the comments by the head of Treasury Select Committee it's shaping up to be one skewed more to protecting pounds with people being more of an expendable consumable commodity.
Do you just mean avoid hospitalisation, or avoid long term ill health?
Currently the former, no data on the latter. But a shift in severity is an expected outcome from some pre-existing immunity. Where the skeptical argument fell apart is that there is no pre-existing immunity from other non-SARS coronavirus infections. Hence the vaccine will give that protection. It MAY produce sterile immunity in a proportion, and MAY reduce transmission. That's how we like to think vaccines work. But I am less convinced in the case of this coronavirus of a dramatic effect - other than in disease severity. That is nailed on and translates across strains. That's no bad thing.
The Vitamin D result is significant Odds ratio 0.2152 (0.1382,0.3352) or 5x less likely to go to ITU, and about half as likely to die: 0.3949 (0.2544,0.6131). Big enough effects to overcome the concerns about it being an open-label study in my opinion. But caution as always with such trials, even adjusting for covariates.
This is the definitive double-blind placebo controlled trial https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03188796?term=Cholecalciferol+COVID+placebo&draw=2&rank=7 33 trials listed in total, 17 placebo controlled
It’s been discussed at length… and the government have rightly rejected it as it is bobbins… those most at risk can not be entirely cut off from the rest of society
No-one (well, I'm not) is saying cutting them completely off from society.
What I'm asking for is, either through personal choice or government guidance, that those in more vulnerable groups take more precautions than those less vulnerable.
Not meeting in any more than small groups (if at all) in indoor settings, be that in their home or in public.
Avoiding large groups.
Maintaining "social distance" from others.
Perhaps even staying at home for certain periods of the year when the virus is at it's worst.
You're not cutting people off. Your asking them to acknowledge that the risk to them is greater than to others and so to act accordingly.
You know those old people you're banging on about, the ones meeting up.. well a lot of them are stretching the rules to look after grandkids etc. It's not just the silver haired ones not following the guidance but that doesn't fit in with the narrative
You're all falling into the trap of finger pointing. It's a distraction engineered by the Govt with loose guidance resulting in people blaming each other and not the Govt for the mess we're in.
You’re all falling into the trap of finger pointing. It’s a distraction engineered by the Govt with loose guidance resulting in people blaming each other and not the Govt for the mess we’re in.
100% agree with this, and it’s depressing to see it happening.
You’re all falling into the trap of finger pointing.
Agreed. Let's try and avoid it. Please.
that those in more vulnerable groups take more precautions than those less vulnerable
But it is the precautions we all take that stop the virus spreading. It can not be left down to individuals not to catch the virus, to save us all having to do our bit... that absolutely does not work. Controlling a highly transmissible virus pandemic can not be left to the "individual responsibility" of those most at risk... it absolutely requires community action. That is the science, not politics... although I can see why some find that hard to accept because of political sensibilities (CRG).
Currently the former, no data on the latter.
I thought so. And it just about possible for us non-number crunchers to see how the success of the former can me monitored as we remove restrictions. But I have no idea if/how the former is going to be tracked/measured... is there anything being planned that you know of TiRed? I'd imagine it's something you've looked into our of personal as well as professional interest.
You’re all falling into the trap of finger pointing. It’s a distraction engineered by the Govt with loose guidance resulting in people blaming each other and not the Govt for the mess we’re in.
Nobodies finger pointing though.
Its about assessing the risk to the individual and taking appropriate mitigating action.
I'll come back to the nut allergy, analogy.
If you know that if you come into contact with nuts, you could face serious health implications.
Would it not make sense to avoid those situations?
Nut allergy isn't highly transmissible. Or transmissible asymptomatically. Or, indeed, transmissible at all.
I’ll come back to the nut allergy.
If you know that if you come into contact with nuts, you could face serious health implications.
Would it not make sense to avoid those situations?
In this allergy analogy can the nuts turn other things in to nuts and do the nuts somethings display no visibly signs of being nuts?