Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- 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 by Jan Vojáček
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Distant Doonhamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...