Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Todd_is_God]

19 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

I'm simply pointing out that locking down or not has consequences. The kind of thing anyone with a comprehension level equivalent to a bright nine-year-old would comprehend.

No lockdown - end result, end of pandemic through either HI or mutation or vaccine. High mortality and serious illness rate due to case numbers overwhelming available healthcare resources.

Complete lockdown - end result, end of pandemic IF mass, effective vaccination takes place before restrictions are lifted. Resurgence of virus if no effective* control measure put in place before relaxation of restriction. Far lower mortality rate than without lockdown, far higher economic damage.

The vast majority of the world's response falls somewhere between the two extremes. I'd tend to lean more towards the second example, as I value my elderly relatives and friends more than I do the ability to go for a pint.

* i.e. NOT Track and fucking Trace, which is a waste of public money the likes of which I've never seen.

Clichéd pish

[Todd_is_God]

31 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Also it seems like there’s quite a big difference in the number of tests carried out each day, yesterday we had 800 caes but a much higher positivity rate

I don't know if the "number of tests" is the number of tests actually carried out in the last 24 hours, or just the number of tests processed in the last 24 hours, but the number of positives announced can be from as many as 5 days ago.

Either way it's a useful stat for tracking the trend over a longer period (you can see it is coming down over the last month), but utterly useless for looking at one day versus the next.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Guest bernardblack]

London in tier two was never in doubt

[Ira Gaines]

9 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Clichéd pish

Speak for yourself. 

[Michael W]

On 23/11/2020 at 19:42, Michael W said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03326-w

Just been reading this article on the Oxford vaccine. Within the article it states that Moderna and Pfizer only tested participants who showed symptoms. The Oxford/AZ participants were all swabbed every week. 

I don't want to piss on anyone's chips, but that looks to me like a fundamental flaw in the Moderna/Pfizer trials. I'm not qualified on this area but it stands to reason that asymptomatic infection could just as easily have occurred during those trials, yet it will have gone entirely undetected. I hope there's a reasonable explanation here, but suddenly those hight efficacy rates look a bit shaky. 

Now,of course the measurement of success with these vaccines is that it prevents people becoming seriously ill rather than completely eliminating the possibility of catching covid, which all three managed to achieve. But it almost looks a cynical way of boosting the results. 

Similarly to this, Oxford/AZ have had an incident as well. In essence, the people getting the half dose followed by the full dose (the part of the trial that showed 90% efficacy) were given a half dose in error. 

www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-11-23/astra-shot-that-works-better-in-smaller-doses-raises-questions

Not sure how that will play out with approvals. Fundamentally, the vaccine is safe and there were also no cases of people becoming seriously ill with covid who had received the vaccine (against 16 in the placebo group who did become seriously ill). So it does seem it works, but with some questions as to how best administer it. If we do have a better result due to accident of circumstances, I'm certainly not going to complain,right enough. 

[welshbairn]

55 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

Is that why Ollie McBurnie gets caps? 

And Darren Mackie didn't?

P.S. Actually after checking, the literary giant got a game with the Scotland B team.

Edited November 26, 2020 by welshbairn

[pandarilla]

Speak for yourself. 

It is, though.

Distilling this down to deaths of old relatives vs going for a pint is utterly pointless.

What about the ability of those working in pubs to pay their bills?

What about the ability of someone with loved ones who are dying being able to spend quality time with them?

None of this is easy, and shite like that needs called out.

[Ira Gaines]

Just now, pandarilla said:

It is, though.

Distilling this down to deaths of old relatives vs going for a pint is utterly pointless.

What about the ability of those working in pubs to pay their bills?

What about the ability of someone with loved ones who are dying being able to spend quality time with them?

None of this is easy, and shite like that needs called out.

It's not. It's one poster making a personal choice. Which happens to be the same choice I'm making. For the same reasons that I don't care about the restrictions lifted at Christmas. 

Todd chose to single out one sentence and criticise it, when said poster was simply saying what they'd do, AFTER pointing out it's what they'd tend to do.

Take issue with the rest of the post if you wish. Don't take issue with someone simply pointing out their choices.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

It is, though.

Distilling this down to deaths of old relatives vs going for a pint is utterly pointless.

What about the ability of those working in pubs to pay their bills?

What about the ability of someone with loved ones who are dying being able to spend quality time with them?

None of this is easy, and shite like that needs called out.

Maybe this belongs in another thread but hey, few things really f**k me of more than someone ( self righteous or genuinely trying to make you feel better ) belittling your problems with  " oh just be glad you're not x" "oh it could be so much worse like xyz" " some people would be glad to be in your position, count yourself lucky  blah blah blah" 

if someone had just lost one of their 2 kids would you say to them " oh well I mean at least you've still got the other one" would you f**k otherwise you'd be nursing a broken jaw!

just dinnae dae it!

[Todd_is_God]

13 minutes ago, Andre Drazen said:

It's not. It's one poster making a personal choice. Which happens to be the same choice I'm making. For the same reasons that I don't care about the restrictions lifted at Christmas. 

Todd chose to single out one sentence and criticise it, when said poster was simply saying what they'd do, AFTER pointing out it's what they'd tend to do.

Take issue with the rest of the post if you wish. Don't take issue with someone simply pointing out their choices.

Once you've dried your eyes you may wish to check the definition of "clichéd"

[vikingTON]

15 minutes ago, Andre Drazen said:

It's not. It's one poster making a personal choice. Which happens to be the same choice I'm making. For the same reasons that I don't care about the restrictions lifted at Christmas. 

Todd chose to single out one sentence and criticise it, when said poster was simply saying what they'd do, AFTER pointing out it's what they'd tend to do.

Take issue with the rest of the post if you wish. Don't take issue with someone simply pointing out their choices.

The choice that someone makes is it entirely up to them. The justification that was given for it was simplistic, moralising pish and so is fair game to be called on.

And it would require a 99% fatality rate from Covid to make you the voice of authority on this forum btw.

[pandarilla]

It's not. It's one poster making a personal choice. Which happens to be the same choice I'm making. For the same reasons that I don't care about the restrictions lifted at Christmas. 
Todd chose to single out one sentence and criticise it, when said poster was simply saying what they'd do, AFTER pointing out it's what they'd tend to do.
Take issue with the rest of the post if you wish. Don't take issue with someone simply pointing out their choices.

I've got no issue with that choice - but when you express it in such an overly-simplistic way then you automatically imply that other folk are being selfish.

There are many reasons why people are opposed to the strictness of the restrictions - and it's hardly ever down to 'i just want to go for a pint'.

He used an oversimplified cliche to sum-up a very difficult situation.

Maybe this belongs in another thread but hey, few things really f**k me of more than someone ( self righteous or genuinely trying to make you feel better ) belittling your problems with  " oh just be glad you're not x" "oh it could be so much worse like xyz" " some people would be glad to be in your position, count yourself lucky  blah blah blah" 
if someone had just lost one of their 2 kids would you say to them " oh well I mean at least you've still got the other one" would you f**k otherwise you'd be nursing a broken jaw!
just dinnae dae it!

I genuinely can't work out how you can aim that at my post.

When did i do this?

[effeffsee_the2nd]

6 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I've got no issue with that choice - but when you express it in such an overly-simplistic way then you automatically imply that other folk are being selfish.

There are many reasons why people are opposed to the strictness of the restrictions - and it's hardly ever down to 'i just want to go for a pint'.

He used an oversimplified cliche to sum-up a very difficult situation.
I genuinely can't work out how you can aim that at my post.

When did i do this?
 

It's not aimed at your post mate, although it's not very clear I'll admit

it was more along the themes of people on social media giving others a hard time for complaining at the massive restrictions placed on their life , by patronising them with a " oh just be glad you're not in intensive care or dead , that's something to complain about , but being couped up in the house with nothing to do worried about your job/ future, that's just a first world problem"   and people do do this

[Gordon EF]

The problem with things like "I'd rather miss out on a pint than kill my mum" isn't that that's an illegitimate personal choice, it's that it's a hysterical mischaracterisation and simplification of the issues. 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

The problem with things like "I'd rather miss out on a pint than kill my mum" isn't that that's an illegitimate personal choice, it's that it's a hysterical mischaracterisation and simplification of the issues. 

exactly,

[Marshmallo]

5 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

The problem with things like "I'd rather miss out on a pint than kill my mum" isn't that that's an illegitimate personal choice, it's that it's a hysterical mischaracterisation and simplification of the issues. 

It's also inherently selfish since it makes the issue about the individual and consumer, rather than empathising with anyone whose source of income (for example) may be affected by restrictions.

[Ron Aldo]

Similarly to this, Oxford/AZ have had an incident as well. In essence, the people getting the half dose followed by the full dose (the part of the trial that showed 90% efficacy) were given a half dose in error. 
www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-11-23/astra-shot-that-works-better-in-smaller-doses-raises-questions
Not sure how that will play out with approvals. Fundamentally, the vaccine is safe and there were also no cases of people becoming seriously ill with covid who had received the vaccine (against 16 in the placebo group who did become seriously ill). So it does seem it works, but with some questions as to how best administer it. If we do have a better result due to accident of circumstances, I'm certainly not going to complain,right enough. 

I could be wrong (and there's a fair chance I am so feel free to correct me) but I don't see this having any effect on the vaccine being approved.

From what I understand, whether you get half a dose or a full dose of the Oxford vaccine its going to be about 70% effective. It seems that they found out by accident that administering half a dose and then the remaining half at a later date acts like a booster and takes the effectiveness up to 90%.

I would think that as long as the vaccine is found to be safe and effective it'll be approved regardless of how its given out.

[Todd_is_God]

15 minutes ago, Snafu said:

It's become this on this thread. Maybe I missed it but I've yet to read anyone on here who is that desperate for a pint in a pub.

Plenty of people looking forward to a pint in a pub after this is all over.

No one was even talking about pubs or anything remotely like that either. A completely random outburst reeking of "this seems like the thing I should say."

It's the type of statement you see on facebook to draw likes and "well said " replies from the very same facebook maws utterly horrifed at even the slightest suggestion schools should maybe move to blended learning.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion that was being had on here, though.

[David W]

2 minutes ago, Ron Aldo said:

I could be wrong (and there's a fair chance I am so feel free to correct me) but I don't see this having any effect on the vaccine being approved.

From what I understand, whether you get half a dose or a full dose of the Oxford vaccine its going to be about 70% effective. It seems that they found out by accident that administering half a dose and then the remaining half at a later date acts like a booster and takes the effectiveness up to 90%.

I would think that as long as the vaccine is found to be safe and effective it'll be approved regardless of how its given out.

The people making these claims have vested interests in Pfizer and/or Moderna.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Ron Aldo said:

I could be wrong (and there's a fair chance I am so feel free to correct me) but I don't see this having any effect on the vaccine being approved.

From what I understand, whether you get half a dose or a full dose of the Oxford vaccine its going to be about 70% effective. It seems that they found out by accident that administering half a dose and then the remaining half at a later date acts like a booster and takes the effectiveness up to 90%.

I would think that as long as the vaccine is found to be safe and effective it'll be approved regardless of how its given out.

I think the sample size for the 90% method was too low for them to be sure, so they'll be checking out that method and also 2x half measures to be sure. Thankfully they're doing it in America where's only commies wear masks so it shouldn't take long.