hire more nurses and doctors
Aye, right enough. There's loads of them sitting around scratching their arses and fully trained on using ventilators for patients. You're definitely onto something here.
Aye, right enough. There’s loads of them sitting around scratching their arses and fully trained on using ventilators for patients. You’re definitely onto something here.
There is actually, they bop off abroad to countries that treat them better and pay them more sadly. We've done not a single thing to fix that in the course of this pandemic even though that is clearly the best way to deal with a virus that will be with us for the rest of our lives. Instead we've been told we don't need to do that we just need to wear a piece of fabric over our face and clap for them.
RE Ivermectin, this seems pretty clear:
One minute the loonies are bemoaning vaccine rollout as the products are 'untested', next minute it's a conspiracy that Regulators aren't approving drugs despite lack of data on safety and tolerability at effective doses.
i have a novel solution, hire more nurses and doctors, and buy more ventilators. We’ve had 18 months to do so have we not?
Last I looked there were 34000 FTE nursing posts that aren't being filled. Where are these extra nurses going to come from when we can't fill the empty positions we have now?
and it’s never been just a couple more months.
In a matter of a few weeks; most, if not all restrictions will be lifted.
Last I looked there were 34000 FTE nursing posts that aren’t being filled. Where are these extra nurses going to come from when we can’t fill the empty positions we have now?
See my subsequent post.
In a matter of a few weeks; most, if not all restrictions will be lifted.
Erm, that's exactly what i was agreeing should happen yes.
Retention of NHS staff is a very big problem airvent. And if we keep running the NHS as "hot" as we currently are, it's going to get even worse, as more staff burn out or just choose a better life for themselves.
What is it that you're so eager to do in August that you're worried will be prevented by any measures left over from the lifting of restrictions in July? Or is it just a point of principle that you want no measures at all left in place over the summer? If everything is lifted in July, except say mask wearing when shopping or moving around in pubs and other venues, would that really be such a big deal for you?
Retention of NHS staff is a very big problem airvent. And if we keep running the NHS as “hot” as we currently are, it’s going to get even worse, as more staff burn out or just choose a better life for themselves.
Nonsense, make the pay and conditions right and people will sign up in droves. It's not about how many people they're treating at once, it's about pay, shift patterns, total staff numbers, respect etc.
What is it that you’re so eager to do in August that you’re worried will be prevented by any measures left over from the lifting of restrictions in July? Or is it just a point of principle that you want no measures at all left in place over the summer? If everything is lifted in July, except say mask wearing when shopping or moving around in pubs and other venues, would that really be such a big deal for you?
Point of principle mainly. I don't believe government should have that level of involvement in my life.
See my subsequent post.
The crap about them leaving for other countries because of better pay? There's a worldwide shortage of nursing. Estimated to be about 9 million. There's a retention problem because hours are long it's stressful, and demanding (they're leaving nursing altogether, not working for better pay elsewhere) there's a retirement crisis looming in primary care nursing, it's estimated that up 50% of GP nursing staff are less than 5 years away from retiring. there's a educational shortfall that will take govt planning and years to overcome, and there's a funding crisis (lack of bursaries) and cost of uni courses.
It's going to take a bit longer than 18 months to sort out.
It’s going to take a bit longer than 18 months to sort out.
Even longer if we don't start doing something about it. Accepting restrictions for much longer is basically just agreeing with this governments approach of defunding the NHS, it's saying "don't bother sorting the NHS out because we are happy to go around with draconian restrictions on our life for a bit longer instead". Accepting restrictions going on and on is validating their approach.
Last time I looked we had just left a group of countries and a freedom of movement agreement that would have allowed us to recruit overseas doctors & nurses............
Things are getting worse for NHS staff numbers not better. Plus loads are about to leave/retire due to the stress of the last year.
Point of principle mainly.
I thought so. You'll be fine then.
I'm personally absolutely longing for gigs to get properly going again. I'm hoping the next lifting allows that to happen. Not really bothered if it means mask wearing at gigs at first though. Obviously they'll be more enjoyable once we're not having to do even that.
RE Ivermectin, this seems pretty clear:
One minute the loonies are bemoaning vaccine rollout as the products are ‘untested’, next minute it’s a conspiracy that Regulators aren’t approving drugs despite lack of data on safety and tolerability at effective doses.
Its been out since 1970 so plenty studies and testing on its general overall safety
Loonies?
With regards to covid...why did they wait until now to start trial when people were singing it's praises 18 months ago?
Accepting restrictions going on and on
I'll make the point again that most restrictions are lifting in a couple of weeks.
With regards to covid…why did they wait until now to start trial when people were singing it’s praises 18 months ago?
There were trials ongoing when I read about it last year... in the Guardian. The problem was that politicians in some countries... Australia and South America mainly IIRC... were pushing its use without waiting for the results of trials, and it became adopted in certain circles as some kind of miracle cure that be used instead of vaccinations.
Anyway, who are you? Why did you join this forum (again?) just to talk about the pandemic?
Maybe we should all take Hydroxychloroquine too? I’ve heard people say that’s a wonder drug against Covid?
Here we go... trails not only ongoing, but reported in the "mainstream media", last summer...
No double-blinded randomised control trials of Covid-19 are yet complete, but Chaccour is working on one of the more than 30 ivermectin trials under way globally.
The South America angle from December...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/10/latin-america-covid-crisis-heads-from-bad-to-worse
The Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, has been internationally condemned for playing down the dangers of a disease he calls “a little flu” and peddling unproven remedies such as hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.
“People are misinformed and alienated. People think there are treatments, that if they take [anti-parasite drug] Ivermectin it’ll all be OK – so much nonsense … Information has to come from the top.”
A year ago...
He knew ivermectin well and was shocked at how quickly it was being adopted as part of treatment protocols without rigorous research to back up its use. He believes more studies should be done first, as he wrote in an editorial in which he was lead author, published on 16 April.
Oh, stop interfering with your pesky facts and accuracy.....
I’ll make the point again that most restrictions are lifting in a couple of weeks.
Yes but some (Kelvin) are arguing that restrictions should last longer and airvent disagrees with that*. Do keep up.
*so do i as it happens
SOME restrictions...... so that others can be lifted. It doesn't have to be all or nothing and keeping some basic controls so that we can relax others is not a massive deep state conspiracy.
But I'm also coming round to the freedom of choice concept, as long as it cuts both ways. Like venues being free to choose not to admit people who don't wear masks / get vaccinated for example, so they can offer an environment that the majority of their customer base wants?
Joe Rogan latest podcast is covering the Ivermectin issue. Makes for pretty shocking listening.
The reasons behind it not being used more are really interesting. Turns out there's no evil genius, or conspiracy, described as a sort of autopilot.
But I’m also coming round to the freedom of choice concept, as long as it cuts both ways. Like venues being free to choose not to admit people who don’t wear masks / get vaccinated for example, so they can offer an environment that the majority of their customer base wants?
A good idea. They should be alowed to enforce additional measures like what you suggested, as long as they are meeting the minimum requirement outlined by the government. Otherwise there will be pubs and clubs with no safety measures at all. I'm sure a lot of people would still go and not care, but it's not fair on everyone else who might catch Covid from them.
I read this afternoon the government is questioning whether schoolchildren should still have to isolate if in contact with a positive case. I'm appalled that they are even questioning this. I understand education is important but lives are more important.
We all deal with speed limits. They cater to the lowest common denominator. Those who can't drive to conditions. Ignore if you want to. Don't get caught. There are an awful lot of people who can't figure this shit out. There are ****s in the supermarket at 9pm on a Tuesday with their partners, 20s and 30s mostly, who despite signs on the door saying 'shop alone' and announcements over the tannoy saying the same, blithely wondering about doing their shopping like it's 2018. In the meantime staff of all ages and health conditions are having to turn up to work. It's disrespectful in the extreme. I'm disgusted by it. Wtf is the matter with these people?
Never mind. Freedom Day is nigh. Brilliant. 👍
FFS none off us want this. None of us woke up in February last year and thought 'you know what would be great? Let's keep everyone at home for a year, kill an extra 130000 people over the course of a year despite everyone being at home, and tank the economy. That would be brilliant'. Anyone who thinks anyone who's in favour of a 'bit' more caution, like a few week's worth, is in favour of those things can **** off. I've had enough. I'm sick of people dying through shit choices. ****ing stop it.
There are **** in the supermarket at 9pm on a Tuesday with their partners, 20s and 30s mostly, who despite signs on the door saying ‘shop alone’ and announcements over the tannoy saying the same, blithely wondering about doing their shopping like it’s 2018.
Went shopping today and I saw more people not wearing masks and in close groups than anyone else, commented to the till server about it and she said they've got no chance of controlling it any more.
Its been out since 1970 so plenty studies and testing on its general overall safety
Loonies?
With regards to covid…why did they wait until now to start trial when people were singing it’s praises 18 months ago?
Your resident pharma-whore here!
As has been stated previously, Ivermectin is off-patent. That means it can be churned-out by anyone with a warehouse and a large bucket.
Why would a pharma company spend hundreds of millions of dollars running trial program to get a license for it to be given as a covid treatment - when they are not going to make any money back from the associated sales?Why did "they" wait before running a trial? Who is they? Because the people running that trial (above) is oxford university. If you are asking why Oxford university (or some other academic institution) didn't run the trial sooner? Probably a something to do with securing the funding. There is a completely legitimate argument to be made about public funding of "non-commercial" research, which I think is probably where you should direct your outrage.
Sydney "Bondi" outbreak update.....
16 new cases yesterday, 11 new cases today. All-but-one of todays new cases have been linked to existing cases. 48,000 tests in the last 24 hours (pretty high for us).
About half of those are linked to a single child's birthday party - by the sounds of it they isolated everyone that was there before they were infectious. Interesting that there were some vaccinated people at that party, and none of them have tested positive (yet).
The health minister has said that the contract tracing is showing that they are seeing people catching it by being in proximity with an infected person very briefly, ie: getting it from being in the same shopping center and walking past each other, rather being in the same shop at the same time.
Sounds like they are adjusting the parameters of the contact tracing as a result to throw a wider net around cases to try to catch anyone who might have caught it. We have a central "check-in" system here (not sure if you have that in the UK) so, as long as people are checking-in with the QR codes, its very very quick to isolate and test people who may have caught it, before they become infectious.
Good news is that they haven't found anyone who's caught it from the primary school student yet - despite testing everybody who could have been in contact with him/her.
Basically mask-wearing all the time now, but also if you are from one of 7 suburbs in Sydney, you are not allowed to travel outside of the greater Sydney area (about an hour in each direction). Applies to me - but I've got two young kids so I don't go anywhere anyway.
"the scariest period in the Pandemic that NSW has been through" - NSW premier. Well done Gladys - smashing it.
Your resident pharma-whore here!
As has been stated previously, Ivermectin is off-patent. That means it can be churned-out by anyone with a warehouse and a large bucket.
Why would a pharma company spend hundreds of millions of dollars running trial program to get a license for it to be given as a covid treatment – when they are not going to make any money back from the associated sales?Why did “they” wait before running a trial? Who is they? Because the people running that trial (above) is oxford university. If you are asking why Oxford university (or some other academic institution) didn’t run the trial sooner? Probably a something to do with securing the funding. There is a completely legitimate argument to be made about public funding of “non-commercial” research, which I think is probably where you should direct your outrage.
@batfink that’s excellent wording and points and straight up facts.
I guess my question is why didn’t they (universities/research) get funds to spend millions trialing ivermectin rather than spend billions on an entire new vaccine. As you say it’s “non commercial “ research you hit the nail on the head.
Is it fairly true to say that a fair chunk of Universities major research funding over the past few years has come from big Pharma?
No outrage just pure interest
Is it fairly true to say that a fair chunk of Universities major research funding over the past few years has come from big Pharma?
That's a question for somebody else - they certainly do receive funds, I've no idea what proportion of their funding it makes up.
I used to award grants to academics for running trials. They would write to us and either want a financial grant, or our product for free, or both. The amount of money involved was typically very small - tens of thousands of Euros, rather than hundreds. Usually less than 50K.
I would assess their proposal based on whether it looked safe, whether what they were doing was in-line with our commercial objectives for the product (or at least, not counter to them), and whether it was likely to result in publishable data.
These trials (called investigator initiated/sponsored trials) are small fry - and are not the kind of trial that would get submitted to a regulator for approval. It might provide the academic an opportunity for somebody to speak at a few conferences and publish a few papers. Occasionally (and I mean super-occasionally) an academic's proposal for a trial would we taken-on and sponsored (ie: run) by the pharma company themselves. This would be done on the basis that the quality of data from academically run trials are usually insufficient to be used towards a submission to a regulator - so the pharma company runs it and owns the data, but usually allows the academic access to the data for their research purposes in return.
This is also done at a much larger scale, whereby academic institutions (or affiliated academic groups/foundations) "partner" with pharma companies, in a similar way to the above. I've run a number of these - and to say they are an enormous ball-ache is a huge understatement, it's like trying to herd cats.
However, the kind of partnership I described above would only happen if it's a study that the pharma company want to do - they are funding it after all.
If you (an academic) want to run a trial on a generic product, ie: one that is off-patent, then you are not going to get any pharma money. "How are those trials going to get done then?" is a valid question.... to which Pharma says (politely) "not my problem mate".
I guess my question is why didn’t they (universities/research) get funds to spend millions trialing ivermectin rather than spend billions on an entire new vaccine
In Pfizers case.... it was their money that they used to develop the vaccine, whereas (as above) the money for an ivermectin trial would have had to come from the public purse/trust/foundation. I'm not entirely familiar with "operation warp speed" in the US, but I think that was basically the US government underwriting the development costs of any vaccine program that was ultimately unsuccessful - thus encouraging companies to move vaccine candidates forward with no risk.
There are **** in the supermarket at 9pm on a Tuesday with their partners, 20s and 30s mostly, who despite signs on the door saying ‘shop alone’ and announcements over the tannoy saying the same, blithely wondering about doing their shopping like it’s 2018.
1. You see all age groups doing this, I anecdotally find it's the older age groups,how's that for unjustified generalisation eh.
2. Its not against the law and not a fineable offence like mask wearing is.
Thoughts (nothing more) on Ivermectin.
I wonder if the vaccine route was just easier for pharma to follow - in pharma terms I think vaccine development is easier, it's a templated method really and 'just' a case of finding the right means of stimulating the immune system - but beyond that it was similar to reengineering the flu vaccine every year etc. Faster, consequently, and also a much bigger uptake. The mRNA types are a different matter, that was less sure but add in underwriting by Gov's etc., and that too was a pretty safe bet economically. And while I don't subscribe to conspiracy, yes big pharma is there to make money for its shareholders.
Ivermectin as a known and off patent therapeutic - still needed the effort and money of clinical trials for this purpose, maybe also could have been underwritten by Govs; there's some evidence that it works but also evidence that it doesn't. As a scientist I like to 'know' everything so would be good to find out but in comparison to any other therapeutic, could have been a shelf gallop of epic proportions. And ultimately a far smaller patient group (still pretty large) and less economic success from it to be shared by anyone with a bit of knowledge and a (clean) bucket.
get funds to spend millions trialing ivermectin rather than spend billions on an entire new vaccine
Obvious troll is obvious.
Isn't the RECOVERY trial the mechanism that the UK has used to run such trials? It showed that chloroquine was ineffective and that Dexamethasone was - both off patent drugs.
Hopefully we'll be able to build on it to use for other conditions.
get funds to spend millions trialing ivermectin rather than spend billions on an entire new vaccine
Obvious troll is obvious.
@kelvin what’s your problem with normal questions and dialogue which has been given properly by some others who are clearly experts?
Your actually the Troll here stamping on everything and everyone.
My problem is that you created a new account just to post “Information and opinions” about the pandemic.
Went to the big Tescos in our local rough town yesterday evening.
No one obviously wearing a mask.
Everyone spread out, OK families in together but there is no "shop alone" message being put out at present?
Felt perfectly safe to me.
Plenty of trials ongoing, on this and others. Just making the point really that vaccines are a 'safe bet' - plenty of people on here were predicting a vaccine right at the start, and that was hardly a lightbulb moment....It's only the speed with which that has been delivered that was wrongly predicted.
Ivermectin (or another therapeutic, or a mass screen of other therapuetics) is a bit needle in the haystack (although as per link there are a lot of people looking at potential needles) and has a smaller overall benefit. An ounce of prevention, etc.
actually quite surprised at the number of trials ongoing according to that link, and wondering how they deal with the screening before going to trials. I mean there have been some quite outlandish suggestions, y'know - disinfectant that kills the virus being brought - inside the body? How do the researchers say 'madness, ignore it!' without being labelled as consipracists?
Wrt ivermectin:
To resolve uncertainties from previous small or poor quality studies, a large scale trial being run by Oxford University, named PRINCIPLE, began recruiting test subjects in June 2021.
A number of countries are also permitting off label use. The FDA, EMA, and WHO all say it should only be used in well managed clinical trials. Let's also not forget that AZ are supplying vaccine at cost.
Du Ur own rserch, etc. I did mine on, err, Google.
Vaccines had to be the main priority as they have demonstrated that they can reduce both the incidence and the severity of covid infection.
Any therapeutic agent is also valuable but its use requires that someone actually gets infected and no therapeutic agent works on everyone, so there will always be collateral damage.
Vaccines reduce the incidence so that anyone who remains susceptible has their risk of infection reduced. Should they then get infected that is when things like dexamethosone and invermectin (if proved to be effective) come in.
I'm just really happy to have both available.
Looks like no facemasks will be required in any settings from 19 July.
You know what, I love going shopping at night. It's bliss. Never used to pre pandemic. I shop at the Tesco superstore in Stretford, and they enforced the shop alone rule after they had an outbreak and the store was closed for a few days last year. That lasted about a month. Most folk seem to wear masks though.
16000 cases yesterday. They predicted 15000 by the 21st June at the current rates? Not far off.
Looks like no facemasks will be required in any settings from 19 July.
Ahh.. good old Eustice...
"Whether there will still be some people who might choose to wear masks or whether it may be advisory in some settings, that's a separate matter," he said.
"But the objective of that final stage is to remove the legal requirement to do these things."
Asked if he would continue to wear a face covering beyond that point, the minister replied: "I wouldn't, no. I have to be honest, once I'm told it's safe not to, I want to get back to normal."
So he makes it clear that he himself will drop mask wearing as soon as the legal requirement is dropped, despite saying that it may be advisory in some settings. Isn't that the point? As soon as the government removes the restriction, people like him will just take that as being told that it's safe to drop mask wearing and will ignore any advice to do so in "some settings". Anyone trying to keep mask wearing going in a setting they are responsible for will have so much hassle trying to do so from people like Eustice that they'll understandably give up.
We all want to get back to normal. What we do over the summer is key to getting there. I don't just want a summer break that feels more normal, I want the rest of this year to be more normal, especially for pupils and students and those on ever longer NHS waiting lists.
Have spent quite a bit of time recently on the NHS FB page correcting some of the misinformation spouted by the anti vax brigade. A thankless task as it’s become a platform for every anti vaxxer in the world.
Latest anti-vax you tube video doing the rounds is this :
They have all seized on this now .
Worryingly you can see how some get sucked in to their agenda.
Would love to know what our more informed contributors think of it?
I only got as far as him talking about the yellow card stats from the government website. Went to have a look at them, and...
It is therefore important that the suspected ADRs described in this report are not interpreted as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.
+
Usage of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has increased rapidly and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported.
Someone else can listen to more if they want. I'll leave it there.
Remember, some people have sadly died due to being vaccinated, and many have suffered ill effects after having the vaccine. But those Yellow Card figures are not what this guy claims they are.
Who is this plum?!
Flagrant manipulation of the facts to suit their insane agenda..
Edit: I listened in & out of it. There’s a real gem towards the end where he states that the reason hospitalisations are going up is due to them being filled up with vaccinated individuals who are suffering severe side effects & are also testing positive.
F me, you couldn’t make it up. Well, obviously you can! 🤣
What madness have I woken up to today?
Masks to not be legal requirement at all from 19th July and school kids not to be tested or isolated.
Just for kicks, we already have Delta Plus over here.
How on earth can this be regarded as the next stepping stone from current restrictions, while yesterday we had a jump from ~11000 to ~16000 positive tests?
But those Yellow Card figures are not what this guy claims they are.
I spent a lot of evenings pointing that out to people who were linking this to every local NHS/Police covid post - point it out, quote the whole section of key information they'd cherry picked and reported the posts.
Seems to have calmed down now. Yes, people disagree on the relative risk and timing of relaxing restrictions, but not as much outright bollocks
