50% of the vote this around….

And yet still only 35.5% of the electorate…

You reckon?

You have clearly never tried to negotiate with anyone from scotland.

This is the juvenile crap I heard all through the indy campaign, Salmond made people want to thing they are in some way “different” or “special”, its classic nationalist tactics. We’re no different from the majority in the UK and the fact that the SNP are trumpeting this crap about being heard in Westminster is just nonsense, the Lib Dems had one more MP and a part of the coalition and we know how well that worked out for them.

It boils my urine almost as much as this “mandate of the people” crap, well guess what, you’ve never had any more than 38% of the people supporting you, so you’ve not got the mandate of the Scots, no matter what the kool aid drinking fanclub shout over the internet.

Might have to slope off and have a cool beer to calm down 🙂

I’m in total agreement with you GrahamS, FPTP sucks and needs replaced. Hopefully this kicks the erse of politics and gains some traction for that to happen. But its not a time for anyone to celebrate or be happy (unless you happen to be a Tory), especially not the SNP, as this is possibly the worst outcome for them!

Because any way you cut it, they now hold 56 seats, which is enough to sway the voting on any contentious bill.

That would be nice, but I disagree, any time there’s a contentious bill that the SNP could influence you’ll hear that Tory whip cracking from up in Shetland.

Big Eck will get some TV time for a few months until the media realise that they’re a total irrelevance and then there’ll be nothing from them for a few years.

You know somethings not right when theres a party on the streets of Glasgow to celebrate an election where the tories won, the reality will hit home by the end of the year.

@grahamS in what way have they established a “strong opposition”? Current Labour are closer aligned to the tories, so the SNP will remain an irrelevance. Not saying its right, but just confused about why people think its such a good thing for the SNP!

@epicsteve how is this good for the independence campaign? David Cameron has come out and said he’ll deliver Devomax, there’s no way of getting a referendum through parliament for at least 5 years, and the SNP still haven’t shown how they can get higher than 38% of the electorate to vote for either them or independence (its the people of Scotland’s mandate remember). The true test of the SNP popularity will be the Holyrood elections next year.

Except the end result of voting in the SNP was that they got the opposite of an anti trident, anti austerity government. Have a look at the snp manifesto, the current government is offering the exact opposite which means the SNP voters have nothing to be happy about, except the prospect of another indy ref, except they no longer have the means to push it through parliament. The sad thing is that a lot of non SNP voters voted SNP this time in an attempt to see a more progressive approach, sadly the failure of Labour has meant the opposite.

With Miliband out, Labour cannot repeat such a pitiful campaign and will probably spend the next five years building a party people in Scotland can actually vote for again, then it’s game over SNP.

They had all the cards on their side last year, nationalist support is at its strongest after a big recession but big eck was right, it’s settled for a generation and not because they don’t want another referendum.

@epicsteve, I disagree, at least in a coalition with Labour they could push another referendum through parliament. Now there’s no chance for the next five years and Cameron will drop devomax killing independence dead.

@northwind, totally agree with you. My confusion is why the SNP supporters are so happy, they’ve achieved nothing. A hung parliament with them as kingmakers was the only real winner. I suspect as mentioned earlier there was a lot of tactical voting down south to prevent that scenario as the difference between the big two was so marginal anyway.

Not sure why the SNP supporters are so happy? They’re going to be nothing more than a novelty in Westminster, totally unable to enact influence on any of their policies. This is the annoying thing with party politics, essentially everyone in Scotland is now left with a local mp with no ability to do anything beneficial for their constituency. I don’t see that result in anything other than a massive loss for the people of Scotland.

Always good when doing a screen share and an instant message pops up slagging one of the meeting participants 😀

Not sure you could class the SPL as elite sport
Not sure that I’d call England Scotland either…

Nobody is saying that they didnt take the injury seriously. Did you read the article and understand it?

Not sure you read either of those posts and understood them….

My point was that this is nothing new, there have been tons of cases of footballers returning without ACL surgery (of which Marvin playing in Scotland was one). This article seems to suggest that this is the first time its ever happened. Of other things to note in the article is the lack of any statistical analysis of the pre and post performance review, and the total absence of any control groups? How do we know that footballers who have surgery don’t exceed their pre-injury performance due to the additional gym sessions?

Not sure you could class the SPL as elite sport, but they should have asked Marvin Andrews who only took 2 weeks to recover from his ACL injury by asking Jesus to heal him.

I on the other hand had next to no stability in mine after a clean snap and needed the surgery and a year’s physio before being able to walk without fear.

You just need to watch out for blue balls 😉 it’s amazing how many nurses decide they need to check your wound afterwards. Nothing like having to lift your gown to show off your scabby nuts to numerous middle aged fat ladies, makes for some interesting chat.

Surely having your wheel fall off is a more likely outcome if you plan to cycle round with your skewers open?

Z3 (or Z4) is probably the only phone which could tempt me from my Oneplus One. Wife has a z3 compact, nicely built and waterproof, software just updated to android 5.0.2. Battery life is awesome, she’s not exactly a heavy user, but gets close to a working week between charges under her normal use.

From the terminal you could do:

sudo apt-get clean
sudo do-release-upgrade -s

and if that works then:
sudo do-release-upgrade

You mean this science editor of the times?

so why give me such a hard time about not having it then?

Care to point me to where I have?

I also strongly believe that people have the right to refuse medical treatment

Indeed they do – but when their actions can directly affect the health of others then I believe they should be able to justify why before they choose not to.

coerced treatment needs a far greater threat and level of proof of need than we currently have.

Nobody is being coerced yet (at least not in the UK anyway).

Which does not include me!

Indeed – if you read my posts I agreed with you somewhere back on page 1 or 2. 🙂

Just had it, no biscuit tho.

Not even a pink wafer, thats lame!

Hagi – my point is in part that actually people who want all healthcare workers vaccinated are getting it the wrong way round.

Its not for me to show why I do not want the vaccination – its for those who want me vaccinated to show why it is needed. The evidence is weak IMO.

The worlds leading experts in immunology and epidemiology disagree with you. You keep claiming the evidence is weak they don't agree.

The only valid reason for not wanting it is you don't want it – self determination remeber?

That isn't a valid reason – not taking it just because you don't want it can have a very real impact on the effectiveness of the vaccination program and can cost lives. I'm very happy for people to opt out if they can justify their reasons for doing so.

The vaccine is in short supply – why waste a dose? let alone thousands of doses.

I agree with this point – until we can manufacture enough doses to offer it to everybody, it needs to be targetted at those most at risk, and then those likely to contact at risk groups.

I'm now curious about Hagi he has only posted in here and has never revealed his profession or interest in this?

I'm a long time lurker, I did post a few times in singletrack v1 under a different name but never got round to registering again.

As for my profession its not really relevant to the argument so I never mentioned it. But I'm actually a director in a pharmaceutical company 😈 woohahaha 😈 – I'm not really 😀

My real gripe and reason for posting on here is that most people arguing against mass vaccination are getting things the wrong way round.

By starting from the assumption that they are correct and that the experts are wrong their argument is pretty weak and hard to justify.

If they instead assumed that the people who have spent their lives studying this are correct, but there is a possiblity they could be wrong and trying to work out if there is any evidence to back up their niggling doubts then perhaps their argument would be a bit more convincing.

As it is, the only valid reason for not taking it that I've heard is for people who are known to have bad reactions or suffer allergies.

God TJ, can't believe your nonsense spouting has suckered me in again 😉

Vaccination of healthcare workers is being done with little evidence that it will do any good, the vaccines are not anywhere close to !00% effective

If you actually look, you'll see from the clinical trials that the seroprotection rate after 2 doses is pretty close to 100% – which is irrelevant because if enough people get the vaccine it doesn't need to be.

I'm sure you know better than the CDC and people who have made their careers studying epidemiology so I'll not point out the fact that most of what you say sounds 'Tabloid led' rather than 'evidence led'.

During the last flu panic (H5N1) the DOH did the same thing and ordered massive stocks of vaccine to be produced – they didn't start a mass vaccination program that time though did they? So maybe they looked at the evidence being produced by the WHO and looked at what every other country in the world is doing as well?

Not enough people are being vaccinated with eh swine flu vaccine to get herd immunity From what I know

Its easy to make a vaccine (the principles are very basic and well understood), however, its not so easy to make enough of it! The recommended approach is start with at-risk groups, then those most in contact with at-risk groups, then get to the rest once you've got enough to go around.

But I'm sure you knew all this and you're not just trolling are you 😉

My concern is that there isn't any evidence that one month is a justified test length. Given if it wasn't a pandemic and a new medication was to be introduced the pathway is years upon years, how come a pandemic can slash this time? are corners being cut?

Its a valid question:
1. The manufacturing process of the vaccine is tried and tested
2. It is identical to the H5N1 vaccine except for viral load – while I can't comment on how many people have actually been vaccinated with it, it began clinical trials in April 2005
3. Pandemrix (the H5N1 version) was signed off by the EMEA in 2008 having undergone the standard approval process.

Sorry, I maybe be a humble receptionist but i must be lower than even your expectations as i am missing something from the link you provided?

Sorry it wasn't meant to be the answers to everything, but rather a starting point, but it kind of illustrates my point anyway.

it merely is the authorisation for the medication and shows the conditions of its such and provision

To you maybe, but to me:
1. It tells me that they've gone for EMEA regulation rather than the less strict MHRA approval
2. Its basis is the H5N1 vaccine trialled in 2007, using the same building blocks just with a different viral protein composition – I can't find any evidence of that causing any serious complications
3. It tells me what the adjuvant is in case you are concerned about that (you do know what an adjuvant is don't you?) – in this case squalane (implicated in gulf war syndrome prompting a number of studies all of which conclusively proved no link to any known health issues)
4. They have scheduled a load more follow up tests to ensure that their product isn't harming people

Again, all of this is possibly not relevant as I doubt most people would take the time and effort to read it.

The fact is people who are experts in their field have certified this vaccine. I've yet to hear a credible reason for frontline workers to not take it (assuming they don't suffer allergies etc). Its their choice, but I'd hope they had a justifiable reason as it could cost lives.

dr_adams

My concern with the above is that these studies are conducted by parties with an interest in the success of the trials.

Really? There are plenty published in peer reviewed journals also quoting their sources of funding. Obviously there is no guarantee they are 100% unbiased, but then the same applies to any published work.

I am sorry but i found that quote a bit mean

I stand by it as the information is there but I wouldn't expect a receptionist or a junior nurse to be able to fully understand and interpret it.

To be honest there are a number of GPs who I also wouldn't trust to be able to understand and interpret a lot of the information out there. This brings me back to my point that we need better education – I don't know what literature is being distributed internally or whether or not it is suitable, but if there isn't somebody with an in-depth understanding of immunology and vaccination campaigns to answer and reassure people, then its never going to work is it?

Yeah it is spread quicker as I say it's a new strain so will spread quicker, same happens with any new virus.

I think what you are referring to is the epidemic curve.

Luckily although H1N1 can spread reasonably fast it fortunately doesn't result in a high death rate. Now if the H5N1 outbreak from a couple of years ago had the same or similar R0 value as this strain we wouldn't be having this argument.

[Quote]It's a real threat but the media is hugely responsilbe for causing panic about swine flu and panic over vaccines. [/quote]

Couldn't agree more, it has been overhyped (as usual) by the media, and its this sort of nonsense which causes issues when it comes to serious discussion of any medical issue.

Then it became so a person in a call centre could diagnose it and the cases rockted, it was published hugely in the media that the pandemic had started don't you think there was a reason for this?

Drac, given your arguements earlier, you are the last person I would have suspected to be making things up without any evidence!

Transmissibility is therefore substantially higher than that of seasonal flu, and comparable with lower estimates of R0 obtained from previous influenza pandemics.

Why have they only planned to vaccinate at risk groups?

I believe that given the well publicised issues with getting enough of the vaccine made available in time, the priority is for at-risk groups and people in close contact with at-risk groups.

The way the anti-virals have been dished out seems to generate questions,

Indeed, it is experiences like this which probably make so many people question the ability of the govenrment to correctly handle a mass vaccination program.

shows nearly half of GP's are concerned and would decline, now either theres a massive lack of information

You've hit the nail on the head there, several studies have been published that prove higher uptake of vaccines in healthcare workers when they properly understand the risks vs the benefits.

Unfortunately the percieved view is that everybody who works in the healthcare profession is capable of making an informed judgement on the safety and efficacy of vaccination. Better education is the key here, not allowing people to make judgements based on what they've read in the tabloids.

As I've said all along, nobody should be forced to take the vaccine, but all of those who choose not to should have a genuine reason (as TJ does) that they can explain to their colleagues and managers because the current body of evidence suggests that not taking it could cost lives.

How ironic. Just checked my work email and there's a clinic on my station in just over a week so now have to try to encourage as many as my staff as I can to have the jab. Wonder if I should print of Hagi's thoughts.

Lol! I'd suggest that BMJ article as a slightly more useful starting point – theres also some interesting comments in response to it.

That's just it Hagi you don't work in the health care profession but seem to think we're not allowed the choice of taking a vaccine and we have a duty of care to take it.

Actually you are correct there I don't work in the health profession (any more). However, if you actually care to read any of my posts you will see that I've said all along that I fully support the individuals choice, my opinion is that you have to have a genuine reason for not taking it given the potential impact to those whose lives you are supposed to be saving.

I'm sorry neither have you, like I say Googling for articles doesn't really count.

Drac, you still aren't getting it (unfortunately) I don't have to make an informed opinion as I've already had it and I don't have to put immunocompromised patients at risk as part of my job. The search engine I use to search for medical articles is irrelevant be it Google scholar, pubmed or any of the others out there, at least I've attempted to put forward some justification for my point of view – you haven't.

Maybe you'd prefer I went back down the medical library and scanned through microfiches, got the journals off the shelf photocopied them and posted the articles to you, would that be better than finding them via a search engine? I remember those days well, not sure I want to revisit them though!

I'll leave you with my last thought on the matter and let the experts highlight the debate better than I can (and yes I used a search engine to find this article shame on me!):

Should healthcare workers have the swine flu?

Rule 101 is we are taught self preservation first.

Whilst I respect your Paramedic skills and knowledge, I'm pretty sure the rule of self preservation don't really apply here now does it? But again, I'm willing to be proven wrong when you show me some evidence of high probability of morbidity or mortality caused by seasonal flu vaccinations. This should be pretty easy to find if it exists given that since 2002 tens of millions of doses have been administered annually.

They're there.

Really? The solitary article I could find was based on German concerns of squalene being used as adjuvant (although technically it isn't an adjuvant, but thats beyond this discussion). Given that Squalene has been used in vaccinations since 1997, doesn't really make it untested does it?

Not only that, but only one of the two sets of vaccine the UK gov. has ordered has an adjuvant so its still a pretty weak argument.

I'm sorry, but you've given me no evidence of an 'informed opinion', and that really riles me up, I've met too many NHS staff who believe they know best because people come to them and ask them for medical advice.

Again I'm not telling anybody to get the flu vaccine, all I want is for those people who have objections to taking it to explain them to me and not to just say they've made an informed opinion which they can't provide any evidence to back up.

Hagi – you are being unnesassarily offensive now.

Really? Apologies, that wasn't my intention. All I'm trying to do is fill in the clearly large gap in my knowledge that all these 'informed' NHS workers seem to have.

TJ, I've said all along that I have no problem with people opting not to have it if they have a genuine reason, you've already stated that you have a reason, thats more than good enough to me.

That is really conclusive is it not?

Nope its the beginnings of an argument based on evidence based reasoning, you should try it sometime.

find one case of a healthcare worker transmitting the disease?

Very amusing, but if you read my earlier posts I link to published studies in contained healthcare environments which show a statistically significant decrease in flu related deaths when healthcare workers have been immunised against seasonal flu. If you search you can find plenty of similar papers.

I've appeared in the High Courts through my work answering questions from defence and prosecution lawyers about my role and decisions so please don't think your any threat.

Just because you are a paramedic with a degree called to court and be questioned by lawyers (who will have limited medical experience themselves) doesn't make you capable of a reasoned argument on immunology any more than it does me as I too am not an immunologist. Am I wrong to say that these court cases were related to accidents and not the spread of viral illnesses through populations? If I am then accept my apologies.

The evidence is there on the BMJ site and posting links to it is far from classed as research now is it, so even if I did it proves nothing more than and still won't sway your opinion.

Nope this isn't really the forum for proper research based arguments is it, but I'm still intrigued to see these links, like I said the majority of papers in the BMJ present the case for vaccination of healthworkers. As for swaying my opinion, I am open minded, but I base my opinion on facts not hearsay or conjecture.

Not to protect my clients

There was me thinking that to be in frontline medical care you'd have to be selfless, clearly I'm wrong (again). I've always said from the beginning of this thread that is the individuals choice, but it should be based on informed opinion, and you will have to live with the moral consequences of your actions not me.

TJ, what you've linked to is a list of mild side effects (unless you have an allergy), not really a comparison to medical journal articles stating quite clearly that there is evidence to suggest not vaccinating healthcare workers could lead to a higher incidence of flu related deaths.

theboatman – when I said all, I meant all in this forum, they've publicly stated their opinion which may influence others who read this thread, but they've given no justification to base their opinion on at least I've tried. Nobody has to answer to me, only themselves.

I'm off to bed now, but if all I do is make at least one person think more deeply about whether or not they should get vaccinated then I'll be happy even if they decide not to.

Good night everybody.

Your waiting for one to please you.

Lol, thats rich coming from somebody so high up on their moral high horse.

Take a look lazy bones.

Believe it or not, when constructing an argument I look for sources to counter my point of view, I've done a search of BMJ articles, haven't found one mentioning panic about the current H1N1 vaccine, but I'm willing to be proven wrong unlike you who is a adopting a hands in your ears 'La la la I can't hear you approach'.

You quite clearly have never had somebody publicly challenge your medical opinion because of your current job role and its obvious you don't have an academic background either as I've yet to see any reasoned argument.

Its a shame really, because there are a probably a lot of people who read this forum who respect you and admire you and will ultimately be swayed by your viewpoint because of partial relevance of your job.

Again I'll state that I don't want anybody to feel forced to be vaccinated against their will, but when it comes to potentially risking the health of others because you've not made an informed opinion, thats on your conscience not mine.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

The BMJ provides evidence for this too.

Such as?

I'm just 'a guy who has selected a few articles on the net' and you are just a paramedic who has confessed to having limited knowledge of immunology. Nobody is saying that they want to take away your right to a choice, but I've provided loads of evidence as to why frontline medical staff should be taking it – evidence that fits with potentially saving the lives of others and hence the reason for being involved in the medical profession. Can anyone else see the irony?

I've still to see a reasoned argument as to why you wouldn't take the vaccine? At the end of the day I'm not out to force people to take it, I just want all those who opt out to tell me why and justify it, 60 posts in and I'm still waiting for one.

1) A carrier is a person who carries he virus but shows no symptoms. They are immune yes but doesn't stop them carrying the virus.

Spread of viruses was very limited subject that I don't think is even covered any more

I'm presuming that you've covered at least basic immunology then?

I believe the R(0) of H1N1 is low enough that if enough people in a group were to be vaccinated then the theoretical presence of Immune Carriers would be irrelevant, but then I'm not an immunologist either. However, I do believe that there are a few working for the WHO, CDC etc. who seem to be recommending that health care workers are immunised.

Forcing NHS professionals to have an immunisation that carries its own risks is simply not on.

TJ – I've presented my side of the argument, backed up by published peer reviewed journal articles, I'm hoping you can complete your side of the argument by pointing me toward published evidence of these risks you have mentioned?

Not really no, a carrier of a virus suffers no symptoms but can very easily spread a virus. Making your whole argument worthless.

Drac, I'm not sure what your qualifications are but:

1. Define what you mean by carrier? If you have been immunised with a live virus, then yes you may still shed virus particles for a period while your immune system is building up immunity. This is a moot point as I believe the UK vaccines are attenuated.
2. If you mean you can still 'carry' the virus on your skin or clothing then you should already be following the proper precautions to prevent this sort of thing like washing your hands?

My point was that H1N1 is a respiratory virus easily spread by coughing and sneezing, if you aren't coughing and sneezing and are taking care when physically contacting patients, then you aren't going to be spreading it are you?

Again, I've already linked to published articles proving that vaccination of healthcare workers prevents deaths due to flu. I've still to see any evidence for not taking the vaccine other than reasons like TJ mentioned.

So you think that me being immune stops me being a carrier, wrong!

H1N1 is highly virulent, you may well be a carrier, but if you aren't symptomatic then you are a lot less likely to pass it on.

TJ – I'm not suggesting that everybody in the NHS should be getting vaccinated (although it may have seemed like I was) – I'm more concerned about the frontline workers dealing with at risk groups.

Again, I've presented evidence for why you should be taking it backed up by some actual published research, and all I've got back in a way of argument is some posts greeting about how 'Its my choice'.

I 100% agree, at the moment in the UK it is totally your choice, however I hope those who opt out have a good reason and aren't just doing it because they aren't sure or because their pals aren't getting it.