superbigal Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 21 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: 25 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: Hopefully they are getting all of the right people in the room to present results saying its safe and effective and try to put a stop to all the speculation. They surely must have realised by now it will harm uptake. Either that or potentially an announcement about certain age groups. Certainly would be a disaster in the UK if they stop its use altogether BBC saying the risks from Covid at 40+ make AZ still the preferred option but it's not so cut and dried the lower down the age groups you fall as their risk of dying from Covid are many many times more minuscule so depending on the calculated risk from this very rare side effect it might become an issue. Vaccines are not about protecting the individual though. It is about protecting all of us. So the risk for and against an individual being vaccinated should also take into account how many people the unvaccinated could kill. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 17 minutes ago, Rob1885 said: Possibly judged that if you're under 40 (or whatever age cut off) you're more likely to die from an AZ vaccine induced blood clot than from Covid itself. I mean this in itself should actually re-focus governments thinking that once the vulnerable cohorts are done then we need to bin restrictions asap and it's not really a big deal if people under 40 and without underlying health conditions arent vaccinated. Exactly. And shut down the stupid fucking covid passport nonsense while we're at it. I'm not exactly a "young person" anymore but that Lineker tweet is spot on. Young people have served their time in this particular fight IMO and it would some fucking kick in the teeth for their natural resistance to covid to be the thing that results in them getting delayed for vaccination and therefore frozen out of having a life for even longer. As we know though, there will be plenty willingt ot launch them under the bus so they can go out into public spaces "in safety" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Marshmallo said: The replies to this sum up the UK in 2021. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 23 minutes ago, oaksoft said: That's as far as I am prepared to read. 1 minute ago, oaksoft said: so I'll leave it there. This sort of feels like progress.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 37 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said: Apology accepted, and similarly, apologies if I've upset you. How you got me agreeing with Oaksoft out of that is beyond me, mind. So, respectfully, my points are: 1. There is a massive gap in efficacy between FRSMs and simple face coverings. A gap which is difficult to quantify because the latter can range from yer ma's tights to a bin bag (extreme, I know, but basically, there's no standard.) 2. Respirators such as FFP2 and FFP3 will be much better at protecting the wearer from aerosols than a FRSM. If properly face fitted, immeasurably so, but I'd bet my house this would be a rare occurence among the public at large. 3. Respirators with a valve attachment are worse than nothing for protecting others, as they impart a false sense of security while being essentially worthless for this purpose. 4. Most importantly, and the point Oaksoft appears to struggle with: in general use, masks are there to protect others from the wearer, not the wearer themselves. NHS workers and others working in a high-risk environment? Yes, these people wear appropriate PPE when necessary. Popping out to Asda or the Garden Centre? Wear a FRSM in order to ensure that you don't spread the virus. If compliance with this simple rule had been higher throughout, we would not have had the extent of cases we have seen. Wearing masks is far from worthless, but half-arsed, I-don't-have-the-rona, pick and choose what rules to follow, knobheads have ensured that we've had more infections than necessary. And yes, I'm wearing a FRSM at work while typing this. FRSM's are designed to protect both the wearer and others from large droplets, splashes or sprays. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Hospital numbers down to 192 from 196. ICU unchanged at 21. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 cases and positivity have taken another shoeing, and only 5 deaths recorded accros 4 days 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Vojáček Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 (edited) - 289 new cases of COVID-19 reported (1.5% of tests...) - 5 new reported death of people who have tested positive - 21 people in ICU (-) - 192 people were in hospital (-4) I was fearing a decent number of deaths today after reporting none at all over the Easter weekend, so five is a good outcome. Tiny number of cases, tiny positivity and the number in hospital continuing to fall. Edit: My maths is telling me that's 1.3% of tests coming back positive - not the 1.5% the Government have said? Edited April 7, 2021 by Jan Vojáček 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 10 minutes ago, Jan Vojáček said: - 289 new cases of COVID-19 reported (1.5% of tests...) - 5 new reported death of people who have tested positive - 21 people in ICU (-) - 192 people were in hospital (-4) I was fearing a decent number of deaths today after reporting none at all over the Easter weekend, so five is a good outcome. Tiny number of cases, tiny positivity and the number in hospital continuing to fall. Edit: My maths is telling me that's 1.3% of tests coming back positive - not the 1.5% the Government have said? 289 is new cases. I can only imagine the total tests return more than 289 but some are repeat positives so only new cases are detailed But 1.5 is the percentage of positive tests returned. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Vojáček Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Just now, Rugster said: 289 is new cases. I can only imagine the total tests return more than 289 but some are repeat positives so only new cases are detailed But 1.5 is the percentage of positive tests returned. Ah, that would make sense. Couldn't get my head around those figures not quite adding up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 15 minutes ago, Jan Vojáček said: - 289 new cases of COVID-19 reported (1.5% of tests...) - 5 new reported death of people who have tested positive - 21 people in ICU (-) - 192 people were in hospital (-4) I was fearing a decent number of deaths today after reporting none at all over the Easter weekend, so five is a good outcome. Tiny number of cases, tiny positivity and the number in hospital continuing to fall. Edit: My maths is telling me that's 1.3% of tests coming back positive - not the 1.5% the Government have said? 192 in hospital is good, but indicates the reduction in numbers has slowed slightly over the last week. Hopefully there are a number of people still hanging about after the holiday weekend that don't really need to be there and this will be reflected over the next couple of days 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: 192 in hospital is good, but indicates the reduction in numbers has slowed slightly over the last week. Hopefully there are a number of people still hanging about after the holiday weekend that don't really need to be there and this will be reflected over the next couple of days Agreed. Be interesting to know the age ranges of the current hospital patients and if they are largely of an unvaccinated demographic. Hopefully you are correct re increased discharges coming up. Edited April 7, 2021 by Distant Doonhamer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: 192 in hospital is good, but indicates the reduction in numbers has slowed slightly over the last week. Hopefully there are a number of people still hanging about after the holiday weekend that don't really need to be there and this will be reflected over the next couple of days Yeah it’s disappointing. I’ve had to put out my cigar for now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Pato said: My dad is 80 and was born in 1941. I think this tweeter needs to reconsider their maths. To catch the arse end of the war, presuming they lied about their age, you're really looking at 1929/1930 as the latest possible birth year to have seen action. ie 90+. I know you know this btw 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossBFaeDundee Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Rob1885 said: A dull yin for those under 40 who've had both doses. Well f**k, I've already had my first dose, don't know where that would leave me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 1 hour ago, WhiteRoseKillie said: Apology accepted, and similarly, apologies if I've upset you. How you got me agreeing with Oaksoft out of that is beyond me, mind. So, respectfully, my points are: 1. There is a massive gap in efficacy between FRSMs and simple face coverings. A gap which is difficult to quantify because the latter can range from yer ma's tights to a bin bag (extreme, I know, but basically, there's no standard.) 2. Respirators such as FFP2 and FFP3 will be much better at protecting the wearer from aerosols than a FRSM. If properly face fitted, immeasurably so, but I'd bet my house this would be a rare occurence among the public at large. 3. Respirators with a valve attachment are worse than nothing for protecting others, as they impart a false sense of security while being essentially worthless for this purpose. 4. Most importantly, and the point Oaksoft appears to struggle with: in general use, masks are there to protect others from the wearer, not the wearer themselves. NHS workers and others working in a high-risk environment? Yes, these people wear appropriate PPE when necessary. Popping out to Asda or the Garden Centre? Wear a FRSM in order to ensure that you don't spread the virus. If compliance with this simple rule had been higher throughout, we would not have had the extent of cases we have seen. Wearing masks is far from worthless, but half-arsed, I-don't-have-the-rona, pick and choose what rules to follow, knobheads have ensured that we've had more infections than necessary. And yes, I'm wearing a FRSM at work while typing this. Oaksoft has responded and I wasn’t misunderstanding, his point is that the wearing of masks (of any type) by the general public does little to minimise the spread of Covid. I am in agreement with that, but if I’ve understood correctly you think the opposite based on the above. Apology retracted! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 5 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said: Agreed. Be interesting to know the age ranges of the current hospital patients and if they are largely of an unvaccinated demographic. Hopefully you are correct re increased discharges coming up. Be interesting to know the weight of them too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 59 minutes ago, 8MileBU said: I’m only a couple of months over 40 and got my first dose of Oxford AZ a couple of weeks ago. Should I be feart o’ the reaper? I think it happens in the first few days or so. Unusual and heavy bruising should send you to A&E but it'd have happened now. Unsure of the script re number of doses, ie if it doesn't happen after first dose does that mean it won't after 2 etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidkennedyshand Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 I think it happens in the first few days or so. Unusual and heavy bruising should send you to A&E but it'd have happened now. Unsure of the script re number of doses, ie if it doesn't happen after first dose does that mean it won't after 2 etc. I think this is why they told us to watch out for headaches that last more than 2 days and bruising other than at the injection site as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Surely people should be given the choice IF they are younger and wish to receive the OXFORD vaccine? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.