|
Post by Northy on Nov 26, 2020 13:32:28 GMT
RIP Stoke on Trent hospitality industry Village I live in is half in Staffs half in Shropshire. Pub in the village can't open but it's less than a mile to one that can. Onneley ?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2020 13:33:34 GMT
Wow ... is all I can say to that mate. Why wow? It generally works and generally it's stuff we don't need to know about. This I can see the argument of needing to know and the discourse does need to be more open. But in terms of general life, the government will lie to us and it will be for own goods. I don't see why that's wow tbh. It makes me feel safer not knowing tbh. It's a wow because I'm amazed that you want your government to instill fear in the public, by lying to them and justify it, by saying thats it's for their own good. I also realise that we're about to start going round in circles, so if it's okay, I'll let you have the last word on it and I'm going to take the dog for a walk.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 26, 2020 13:34:53 GMT
Surely even the most die hard scum bag pro lockdowners can't support this? When is the commons vote on it? There will be mass backlash from both parties I suspect. So GDP has dropped more this year than any since the beginning of the 18th century. Can any pro lockdown nutjob on here tell me why lockdown was a good idea? It's literally about to drop a nuclear bomb on the country. I hope you utter clowns realise what you've just supported. Quote from Sky news (and this is the wokest mainstream outlet in the UK right now along with the guardian) "we have never seen anything like this in war time, let alone peace time". And that's just the economic and unemployment crisis facing us. In addition to that you've got a mental health pandemic simmering along with enormous wider health issues and widespread discontent like we've not seen in decades. You fucking idiots. Why are you so abusive to people who have a different opinion from yourself ?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 26, 2020 13:38:24 GMT
Surely even the most die hard scum bag pro lockdowners can't support this? When is the commons vote on it? There will be mass backlash from both parties I suspect. So GDP has dropped more this year than any since the beginning of the 18th century. Can any pro lockdown nutjob on here tell me why lockdown was a good idea? It's literally about to drop a nuclear bomb on the country. I hope you utter clowns realise what you've just supported. Quote from Sky news (and this is the wokest mainstream outlet in the UK right now along with the guardian) "we have never seen anything like this in war time, let alone peace time". And that's just the economic and unemployment crisis facing us. In addition to that you've got a mental health pandemic simmering along with enormous wider health issues and widespread discontent like we've not seen in decades. You fucking idiots. Why are you so abusive to people who have a different opinion from yourself ? You're right. I shouldn't refer to anyone as idiots because of their different opinion. I guess it's emotive times when livelihoods are getting obliterated by the day. Apologies for any offence.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Nov 26, 2020 13:41:18 GMT
The Phase 2 data contains elderly folks but largely on the healthier side, it came out around 5 days before the 70% efficacy claim in fairness and is published in the Lancet so it’s been looked at an assessed and I think the comments on it were fair enough at that stage. The issue is the proximity to the phase 3 interim data which contains the muddled analyses and undermines it. I don’t think it’s embellishment per se, I think it’s the fact their protocol is a bit muddled compared to Pfizer and Moderna and the fact no one can yet look at how they’ve reached that figure because we can’t yet probe the maths behind the power analysis or how they’ve combined the studies in depth. Which Moderna and Pfizer haven’t have to do because they are single, massive trials. Again though, even if that number came out as legitimately 90% as for the others it still needs assessing for how many severe cases does it stop/is it stopping transmission etc. If they are trying to embellish they’ve done it poorly because they’ve shafted themselves in the US, which makes me believe it was more sloppiness. I agree with his statement about you can’t judge much on interim data, that applies for all 3 so far and that’s why I urge caution whenever this stuff comes out. Trials are still ongoing and we will need that extra data. Thanks for that Matt. This question might be unfair of me to ask, so if it is, please don't be afraid to say as much but do you think there's any chance that the Government might think that even if the Oxford vaccine ultimately isn't as effective as the other vaccines, they might still go with it for the majority of the vaccinations, simply because it costs a fraction of the other vaccines and can be stored in ordinary refrigerators? Not unfair at all Paul, very interesting point IMO. Of course I don’t know, but the logistical aspect of this is huge. Pfizer and Moderna of course have been relying on people coming in for jabs so far, which is a easy compared to then rolling it out nationwide where the time and storage pressures will really tell. I know Moderna’s is a bit more workable than Pfizer’s but we only have what? 4,000,000 doses of it? The last thing you want/biggest risk (but I think could definitely happen just because life is life) is the vaccines fall apart in transit and they give a load of duds to people. I don’t think it’s a wholly unlikely event too, I know I went on about the cold chain in the DR Congo but vaccinating 40,000 is totally different to millions even if the US is way more developed. It’s going to have to run like clockwork every single day of rollout. Personally I think the government is obliged to make the most effective vaccine available to those who need it most and work out the best way to do that. But I can see them pushing ahead with Oxford for the reasons you have listed, not necessarily in a cynical way, these logistical challenges are huge, plus you have to factor in who is going to be the end administrator of the jabs, localised storage, do they need to be made up on site by stressed out care home staff, are the facilities sterile enough for that etc. The Oxford vaccine circumvents many of these issues and would prevent human error at the end user level, or storage errors at the admin level. This may be attractive for a quick rollout. I’m speculating though, so please (anyone) don’t take what I’m saying as gospel! I think if and when that decision comes it needs costing and laying out fully. (Like an analysis of how Oxford could protect more at a population level, despite being individually less effective)
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 26, 2020 13:49:18 GMT
Why wow? It generally works and generally it's stuff we don't need to know about. This I can see the argument of needing to know and the discourse does need to be more open. But in terms of general life, the government will lie to us and it will be for own goods. I don't see why that's wow tbh. It makes me feel safer not knowing tbh. I'm really struggling to get my head around this. Can you give me a couple of examples where you think it's in our interests that the government lie to us? Defence and security mainly.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 26, 2020 13:51:38 GMT
Why wow? It generally works and generally it's stuff we don't need to know about. This I can see the argument of needing to know and the discourse does need to be more open. But in terms of general life, the government will lie to us and it will be for own goods. I don't see why that's wow tbh. It makes me feel safer not knowing tbh. It's a wow because I'm amazed that you want your government to instill fear in the public, by lying to them and justify it, by saying thats it's for their own good. I also realise that we're about to start going round in circles, so if it's okay, I'll let you have the last word on it and I'm going to take the dog for a walk. But it is, it works. It’s for their health to follow the rules and people weren’t doing that. The public needed a kick up the arse.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 26, 2020 13:57:43 GMT
Thanks for that Matt. This question might be unfair of me to ask, so if it is, please don't be afraid to say as much but do you think there's any chance that the Government might think that even if the Oxford vaccine ultimately isn't as effective as the other vaccines, they might still go with it for the majority of the vaccinations, simply because it costs a fraction of the other vaccines and can be stored in ordinary refrigerators? Not unfair at all Paul, very interesting point IMO. Of course I don’t know, but the logistical aspect of this is huge. Pfizer and Moderna of course have been relying on people coming in for jabs so far, which is a easy compared to then rolling it out nationwide where the time and storage pressures will really tell. I know Moderna’s is a bit more workable than Pfizer’s but we only have what? 4,000,000 doses of it? The last thing you want/biggest risk (but I think could definitely happen just because life is life) is the vaccines fall apart in transit and they give a load of duds to people. I don’t think it’s a wholly unlikely event too, I know I went on about the cold chain in the DR Congo but vaccinating 40,000 is totally different to millions even if the US is way more developed. It’s going to have to run like clockwork every single day of rollout. Personally I think the government is obliged to make the most effective vaccine available to those who need it most and work out the best way to do that. But I can see them pushing ahead with Oxford for the reasons you have listed, not necessarily in a cynical way, these logistical challenges are huge, plus you have to factor in who is going to be the end administrator of the jabs, localised storage, do they need to be made up on site by stressed out care home staff, are the facilities sterile enough for that etc. The Oxford vaccine circumvents many of these issues and would prevent human error at the end user level, or storage errors at the admin level. This may be attractive for a quick rollout. I’m speculating though, so please (anyone) don’t take what I’m saying as gospel! I think if and when that decision comes it needs costing and laying out fully. (Like an analysis of how Oxford could protect more at a population level, despite being individually less effective) I had naively assumed that any orders for the Oxford vaccine would be predicated on passing muster. But Brazil revealed that they have to pay for the Oxford vaccine regardless. "Brazil will spend $287 million to buy vaccine doses and ingredients for as many as 100 million shots that it will be able to produce locally with the technology transfer, Health Ministry Executive Secretary Elcio Franco said at a press conference in Brasilia today. " The first order, regardless of the final results of the vaccine clinical trials, will cost Brazil $127 million, Franco said. That will include 30.4 million doses to be delivered in December and January, as well as the technology transfer. Bloomberg I wonder what our deal is?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 26, 2020 14:07:03 GMT
Why are you so abusive to people who have a different opinion from yourself ? You're right. I shouldn't refer to anyone as idiots because of their different opinion. I guess it's emotive times when livelihoods are getting obliterated by the day. Apologies for any offence. No worries, it's tough on lots of people whether losing their job or family members to not getting treatment for illnesses, we all have different views on how it should have been handled, that's what makes us, instead of being like robots.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 26, 2020 14:09:55 GMT
Thanks for that Matt. This question might be unfair of me to ask, so if it is, please don't be afraid to say as much but do you think there's any chance that the Government might think that even if the Oxford vaccine ultimately isn't as effective as the other vaccines, they might still go with it for the majority of the vaccinations, simply because it costs a fraction of the other vaccines and can be stored in ordinary refrigerators? Not unfair at all Paul, very interesting point IMO. Of course I don’t know, but the logistical aspect of this is huge. Pfizer and Moderna of course have been relying on people coming in for jabs so far, which is a easy compared to then rolling it out nationwide where the time and storage pressures will really tell. I know Moderna’s is a bit more workable than Pfizer’s but we only have what? 4,000,000 doses of it? The last thing you want/biggest risk (but I think could definitely happen just because life is life) is the vaccines fall apart in transit and they give a load of duds to people. I don’t think it’s a wholly unlikely event too, I know I went on about the cold chain in the DR Congo but vaccinating 40,000 is totally different to millions even if the US is way more developed. It’s going to have to run like clockwork every single day of rollout. Personally I think the government is obliged to make the most effective vaccine available to those who need it most and work out the best way to do that. But I can see them pushing ahead with Oxford for the reasons you have listed, not necessarily in a cynical way, these logistical challenges are huge, plus you have to factor in who is going to be the end administrator of the jabs, localised storage, do they need to be made up on site by stressed out care home staff, are the facilities sterile enough for that etc. The Oxford vaccine circumvents many of these issues and would prevent human error at the end user level, or storage errors at the admin level. This may be attractive for a quick rollout. I’m speculating though, so please (anyone) don’t take what I’m saying as gospel! I think if and when that decision comes it needs costing and laying out fully. (Like an analysis of how Oxford could protect more at a population level, despite being individually less effective) Thank you for that ESOF. You've laid out the pros ands cons well there. I'm looking at this vaccine in a pragmatic way. I usually have the flu jab even though I'm aware that it may not be effective against whatever strain of flu arrives each year. These things never are an exact science. As I see it, if the chances of me avoiding the worst effects of covid are greatly reduced by a vaccine (of any make) then I'll have the jab simply because it's better than no vaccine at all. But given the vaccine isn't 100% guaranteed, I won't have the jab and then go on a free for all freedom spree because I have. I'll still be taking sensible precautions until this lot is all over. OS.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Nov 26, 2020 14:14:31 GMT
I'm really struggling to get my head around this. Can you give me a couple of examples where you think it's in our interests that the government lie to us? Defence and security mainly. Like when they told us Saddam had WMDs?
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Nov 26, 2020 14:15:50 GMT
Thanks for that Matt. This question might be unfair of me to ask, so if it is, please don't be afraid to say as much but do you think there's any chance that the Government might think that even if the Oxford vaccine ultimately isn't as effective as the other vaccines, they might still go with it for the majority of the vaccinations, simply because it costs a fraction of the other vaccines and can be stored in ordinary refrigerators? Not unfair at all Paul, very interesting point IMO. Of course I don’t know, but the logistical aspect of this is huge. Pfizer and Moderna of course have been relying on people coming in for jabs so far, which is a easy compared to then rolling it out nationwide where the time and storage pressures will really tell. I know Moderna’s is a bit more workable than Pfizer’s but we only have what? 4,000,000 doses of it? The last thing you want/biggest risk (but I think could definitely happen just because life is life) is the vaccines fall apart in transit and they give a load of duds to people. I don’t think it’s a wholly unlikely event too, I know I went on about the cold chain in the DR Congo but vaccinating 40,000 is totally different to millions even if the US is way more developed. It’s going to have to run like clockwork every single day of rollout. Personally I think the government is obliged to make the most effective vaccine available to those who need it most and work out the best way to do that. But I can see them pushing ahead with Oxford for the reasons you have listed, not necessarily in a cynical way, these logistical challenges are huge, plus you have to factor in who is going to be the end administrator of the jabs, localised storage, do they need to be made up on site by stressed out care home staff, are the facilities sterile enough for that etc. The Oxford vaccine circumvents many of these issues and would prevent human error at the end user level, or storage errors at the admin level. This may be attractive for a quick rollout. I’m speculating though, so please (anyone) don’t take what I’m saying as gospel! I think if and when that decision comes it needs costing and laying out fully. (Like an analysis of how Oxford could protect more at a population level, despite being individually less effective) Don't suppose you know when the next set of data are available for the Oxford and/or mRNA vaccines do you? Regarding storage etc, the minus 80 is a major issue - we've bought 40 million, not 4 apparently. Hopefully the gov have been buying up freezers and dry ice machines since they placed the order.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Nov 26, 2020 14:19:44 GMT
Not unfair at all Paul, very interesting point IMO. Of course I don’t know, but the logistical aspect of this is huge. Pfizer and Moderna of course have been relying on people coming in for jabs so far, which is a easy compared to then rolling it out nationwide where the time and storage pressures will really tell. I know Moderna’s is a bit more workable than Pfizer’s but we only have what? 4,000,000 doses of it? The last thing you want/biggest risk (but I think could definitely happen just because life is life) is the vaccines fall apart in transit and they give a load of duds to people. I don’t think it’s a wholly unlikely event too, I know I went on about the cold chain in the DR Congo but vaccinating 40,000 is totally different to millions even if the US is way more developed. It’s going to have to run like clockwork every single day of rollout. Personally I think the government is obliged to make the most effective vaccine available to those who need it most and work out the best way to do that. But I can see them pushing ahead with Oxford for the reasons you have listed, not necessarily in a cynical way, these logistical challenges are huge, plus you have to factor in who is going to be the end administrator of the jabs, localised storage, do they need to be made up on site by stressed out care home staff, are the facilities sterile enough for that etc. The Oxford vaccine circumvents many of these issues and would prevent human error at the end user level, or storage errors at the admin level. This may be attractive for a quick rollout. I’m speculating though, so please (anyone) don’t take what I’m saying as gospel! I think if and when that decision comes it needs costing and laying out fully. (Like an analysis of how Oxford could protect more at a population level, despite being individually less effective) Don't suppose you know when the next set of data are available for the Oxford and/or mRNA vaccines do you? Regarding storage etc, the minus 80 is a major issue - we've bought 40 million, not 4 apparently. Hopefully the gov have been buying up freezers and dry ice machines since they placed the order. Its 40 mill of the oxford one and 4 million of the Moderna one isnt it?
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Nov 26, 2020 14:19:44 GMT
Which is why they've completely lost the public. People keep saying this but there's absolutely nothing to back it up. 58.5% of a 51,000 sample think the Christmas rules are risky/too lenient. Not scientific and to a certain market yes but that's still a big sample. And tbh I can't think of anyone I know in the real world that thinks any of the measures are too lenient etc. That obviously is just my experience. That poll doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I've spoken with a great many people who have been absolutely terrified by the constant gloom driven propoganda from government, sage and MSM.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Nov 26, 2020 14:21:07 GMT
Not unfair at all Paul, very interesting point IMO. Of course I don’t know, but the logistical aspect of this is huge. Pfizer and Moderna of course have been relying on people coming in for jabs so far, which is a easy compared to then rolling it out nationwide where the time and storage pressures will really tell. I know Moderna’s is a bit more workable than Pfizer’s but we only have what? 4,000,000 doses of it? The last thing you want/biggest risk (but I think could definitely happen just because life is life) is the vaccines fall apart in transit and they give a load of duds to people. I don’t think it’s a wholly unlikely event too, I know I went on about the cold chain in the DR Congo but vaccinating 40,000 is totally different to millions even if the US is way more developed. It’s going to have to run like clockwork every single day of rollout. Personally I think the government is obliged to make the most effective vaccine available to those who need it most and work out the best way to do that. But I can see them pushing ahead with Oxford for the reasons you have listed, not necessarily in a cynical way, these logistical challenges are huge, plus you have to factor in who is going to be the end administrator of the jabs, localised storage, do they need to be made up on site by stressed out care home staff, are the facilities sterile enough for that etc. The Oxford vaccine circumvents many of these issues and would prevent human error at the end user level, or storage errors at the admin level. This may be attractive for a quick rollout. I’m speculating though, so please (anyone) don’t take what I’m saying as gospel! I think if and when that decision comes it needs costing and laying out fully. (Like an analysis of how Oxford could protect more at a population level, despite being individually less effective) Don't suppose you know when the next set of data are available for the Oxford and/or mRNA vaccines do you? Regarding storage etc, the minus 80 is a major issue - we've bought 40 million, not 4 apparently. Hopefully the gov have been buying up freezers and dry ice machines since they placed the order. 40 million is for Pfizer, I think we’ve arranged a deal with Moderna for 4-5 million (we missed the boat originally) I think we have upwards of 90 million Oxford doses purchased. But you are absolutely right, massive logistical challenge with the former. I think AZ said December for more data release but not certain on that, apologies. 👍
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 26, 2020 14:22:10 GMT
Village I live in is half in Staffs half in Shropshire. Pub in the village can't open but it's less than a mile to one that can. Onneley ? Indeed
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 26, 2020 14:22:55 GMT
Defence and security mainly. Like when they told us Saddam had WMDs? Yes. I don't get why people get hung up on that tbh.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Nov 26, 2020 14:23:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 26, 2020 14:24:05 GMT
People keep saying this but there's absolutely nothing to back it up. 58.5% of a 51,000 sample think the Christmas rules are risky/too lenient. Not scientific and to a certain market yes but that's still a big sample. And tbh I can't think of anyone I know in the real world that thinks any of the measures are too lenient etc. That obviously is just my experience. That poll doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I've spoken with a great many people who have been absolutely terrified by the constant gloom driven propoganda from government, sage and MSM. It's almost like we're in the middle of a pandemic that is killing people that really shouldn't be dying!
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Nov 26, 2020 14:33:09 GMT
Defence and security mainly. Like when they told us Saddam had WMDs? Was going to make exactly that point. The road to a million dead Iraqis is paved with good intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Nov 26, 2020 14:37:21 GMT
I wonder when it comes time to put London into Tier 3 whether they review how these regions are split and decide to go for smaller more targeted areas.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Nov 26, 2020 14:39:11 GMT
That poll doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I've spoken with a great many people who have been absolutely terrified by the constant gloom driven propoganda from government, sage and MSM. It's almost like we're in the middle of a pandemic that is killing people that really shouldn't be dying! The people I was referring to aren't over 85 with underlying health issues.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 26, 2020 14:40:16 GMT
It's almost like we're in the middle of a pandemic that is killing people that really shouldn't be dying! The people I was referring to aren't over 85 with underlying health issues. Good.
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Nov 26, 2020 14:40:36 GMT
Don't suppose you know when the next set of data are available for the Oxford and/or mRNA vaccines do you? Regarding storage etc, the minus 80 is a major issue - we've bought 40 million, not 4 apparently. Hopefully the gov have been buying up freezers and dry ice machines since they placed the order. Its 40 mill of the oxford one and 4 million of the Moderna one isnt it? 40m Pfizer, 100m Oxford/AZ according to this. Sorry, Estranged, misread your post about numbers. www.gov.uk/government/news/government-welcomes-the-mhra-review-into-pfizer-and-biontech-vaccine** Goes off to put chains around the -80 in my lab **
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Nov 26, 2020 14:41:31 GMT
The people I was referring to aren't over 85 with underlying health issues. Good. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 26, 2020 14:45:58 GMT
Like when they told us Saddam had WMDs? Yes. I don't get why people get hung up on that tbh. Yeah a million dead folk, let it go for fucks sake........
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Nov 26, 2020 14:46:00 GMT
Why wow? It generally works and generally it's stuff we don't need to know about. This I can see the argument of needing to know and the discourse does need to be more open. But in terms of general life, the government will lie to us and it will be for own goods. I don't see why that's wow tbh. It makes me feel safer not knowing tbh. It's a wow because I'm amazed that you want your government to instill fear in the public, by lying to them and justify it, by saying thats it's for their own good. I also realise that we're about to start going round in circles, so if it's okay, I'll let you have the last word on it and I'm going to take the dog for a walk. You only need to take Brexit as an example as to why the British people can't be trusted with certain decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 26, 2020 14:51:45 GMT
It's almost like we're in the middle of a pandemic that is killing people that really shouldn't be dying! The people I was referring to aren't over 85 with underlying health issues. That's good, was speaking to a friend yesterday who is still in hospital with cv19, under 60 and fairly healthy, a week after coming out of ICU his right lung collapsed last Friday, he's back on the mend again, the guy next to him is having his toes amputated, the one next to him now has diabetes as it attacked his pancreas, other people have kidney and liver problems, long covid, also with lung problems. On the news last night, Preston hospital empty for routine and non CV19 works as all the doctors are helping out at Blackburn with their CV19. Why do people just concentrate on the over 85 death rate when there is so much more to this disease?
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Nov 26, 2020 14:52:20 GMT
It's a wow because I'm amazed that you want your government to instill fear in the public, by lying to them and justify it, by saying thats it's for their own good. I also realise that we're about to start going round in circles, so if it's okay, I'll let you have the last word on it and I'm going to take the dog for a walk. But it is, it works. It’s for their health to follow the rules and people weren’t doing that. The public needed a kick up the arse. So you admit they've been lying to us and scare mongering just to keep us in line this whole time. So us "nutjobs" had every right to be sceptical then.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 26, 2020 14:52:52 GMT
I wonder when it comes time to put London into Tier 3 whether they review how these regions are split and decide to go for smaller more targeted areas. Surely the penny has dropped that small local lockdowns don't work as the virus doesn't appear to recognise post codes. There are always going to be weird anomalies at the borders but the areas have to be big enough to make any practical sense. The only one that makes any sense in London is surely north and south of the Thames and even that is iffy.
|
|