Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[tsubaki]

You can be very confident of something because of available results and your experience in the field of immunology, without necessarily having all the data to hand.

Experience of similar virus types does inform likely scenarios for lasting immunity as well as knowledge of the body's immune system and how it functions.

In the midst of a global pandemic with infections spiralling out of control difficult decisions have to be made based on the overwhelming likelihood of something being the case. When urgency is desperately needed, time to take ideal options or the go slow and stop alternative isn't always better but very often far worse.

Imagine the criticism if our vaccine response had mirrored those in France? It might be ok for Professor Macron but it certainly wasn't for here.

Right - but what other country has made this decision, to delay second Pfizer doses for twelve weeks? They've all faced the same sort of decision, and yet no-one else has done this. The closest that someone has come is to delay it (the second dose) for six weeks.

As for criticism - there would have been no criticism, whatsoever, if they'd followed the guidance they agreed when approving Pfizer. The opposite would be true; we'd have the best vaccination campaign of all the major Western nations by quite a long way.

Just as an aside though - if we get to the start of April and the government says that they are going to delay the second AZ jab for the same reasons as they did for Pfizer, are you going to support that decision?

 

[mill]

NZ did a great job of looking after themselves.
Similar to Australia they have a geographical advantage being so isolated and easy to cut off but they didn't mess about with half lockdowns and open borders.

Not been as impressed with their international efforts. They have only contributed about 5% of what we have to COVAX and they are actually getting about 250,000 doses sent via this scheme (only 4 out of 38 "developed" countries have done this).

Is this nationalism?

Tbf their gdp is c$200bn relative to ours which is c$2.5tn.

they’ve contributed their fair share on those terms.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Right - but what other country has made this decision, to delay second Pfizer doses for twelve weeks? They've all faced the same sort of decision, and yet no-one else has done this. The closest that someone has come is to delay it (the second dose) for six weeks.

As for criticism - there would have been no criticism, whatsoever, if they'd followed the guidance they agreed when approving Pfizer. The opposite would be true; we'd have the best vaccination campaign of all the major Western nations by quite a long way.

Just as an aside though - if we get to the start of April and the government says that they are going to delay the second AZ jab for the same reasons as they did for Pfizer, are you going to support that decision?

First point is not all other countries are in that same position, that's simply incorrect. Some aren't free to independently tailor their own decision to their own circumstances, but must abide to a communal decision taken by other politicians from other countries as well.

The criticism stuff isn't for me too relative to a decision taken at a particular time in the pandemic cycle as far as it affected our country. You can't then look back on what should have happened or how the situation should have been. You have only to concentrate on how it actually is, is urgent action crucial? The present situation should be the only thing that matters. There is no place for hindsight or whataboutery in the decision making process, it's about what's best for us now and what's likely to change our circumstances for the better.

The last point hardly relevant as I can suggest we all go to the moon but it doesn't change things. It doesn't matter what I support as long as the right decision is made for our situation.

 

[Walken]

That's simply not true.

It's been everywhere - and rightly so.

Checked the home page of sky and bbc via laptop and it was nowhere to be seen.

 

[Walken]

Open. Schools. Everywhere in the world. Our kids deserve better!

It's not a case of deliberately neglecting children by closing schools. Perhaps health care staff also deserve better than to be driven to early graves

 

[BlueToff]

Checked the home page of sky and bbc via laptop and it was nowhere to be seen.

I did the same (on my Macbook) and it was the second story on BBC, third story on Sky.

It's been everywhere - and he should be resigning. It was also on the homepages on my phone, too

 

[Walken]

I did the same (on my Macbook) and it was the second story on BBC, third story on Sky.

It's been everywhere - and he should be resigning. It was also on the homepages on my phone, too

From my phone it was second on bbc, nowhere on sky. It was not on either page via my laptop. Had it not been for the much maligned social media their disturbing corruption would barely have been reported at all.

He won't be resigning and there won't be pressure on him to resign. In this government you tow the line and all manner of evil is accepted

 

[tsubaki]

First point is not all other countries are in that same position, that's simply incorrect. Some aren't free to independently tailor their own decision to their own circumstances, but must abide to a communal decision taken by other politicians from other countries as well.

The criticism stuff isn't for me too relative to a decision taken at a particular time in the pandemic cycle as far as it affected our country. You can't then look back on what should have happened or how the situation should have been. You have only to concentrate on how it actually is, is urgent action crucial? The present situation should be the only thing that matters. There is no place for hindsight or whataboutery in the decision making process, it's about what's best for us now and what's likely to change our circumstances for the better.

The last point hardly relevant as I can suggest we all go to the moon but it doesn't change things. It doesn't matter what I support as long as the right decision is made for our situation.

This seems to miss a whole load of the point.

For a start, this is a global pandemic and lots of Western countries have been faced with this decision. To suggest that they aren't all in this boat is, frankly, so wrong as to make answering the rest of your argument seem like a complete waste of time.

As for the criticism, to say what you've said there is basically to say no decision made by a government in a crisis can be criticised because they were doing "what's best for us", and to suggest that the criticism is being given with the benefit of hindsight. In this instance, it isn't - loads of people criticised this (including me) when they made that decision, for the same reasons they are still citing in criticism of it now. What's more is that if any government tried to change any policy in the way this one was, at extremely short notice and with such an ongoing and total lack of evidence to back that change up, I'd hope that people would criticise it.

Finally the last point is absolutely relevant; AZ has (like Pfizer) been tested on and authorised for use based on a certain dosing schedule. If the government turned around at short notice again and said they were going to ignore that, why would anyone not be concerned? Or are we just to hope they are doing whats best for us again?

 

[PaulPowersTash]

that simply isn't true. My sister lives there..

It's complete and utter rubbish.
I work for a very large Swiss compamy based in Zurich and speak with them every single day.
They are in lockdown the same as us.
It just amazes me that because someting is posted on the Internet people automatically believe
it's 100% true.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

This seems to miss a whole load of the point.

For a start, this is a global pandemic and lots of Western countries have been faced with this decision. To suggest that they aren't all in this boat is, frankly, so wrong as to make answering the rest of your argument seem like a complete waste of time.

As for the criticism, to say what you've said there is basically to say no decision made by a government in a crisis can be criticised because they were doing "what's best for us", and to suggest that the criticism is being given with the benefit of hindsight. In this instance, it isn't - loads of people criticised this (including me) when they made that decision, for the same reasons they are still citing in criticism of it now. What's more is that if any government tried to change any policy in the way this one was, at extremely short notice and with such an ongoing and total lack of evidence to back that change up, I'd hope that people would criticise it.

Finally the last point is absolutely relevant; AZ has (like Pfizer) been tested on and authorised for use based on a certain dosing schedule. If the government turned around at short notice again and said they were going to ignore that, why would anyone not be concerned? Or are we just to hope they are doing whats best for us again?

I pretty much disagree with every post you make so I'll just end it or we could go on forever.

I said not all countries (are in our situation) this isn't the same as saying no other western country... as in the way you seem to have interpreted it

 

[Chris O'Connor]

This seems to miss a whole load of the point.

For a start, this is a global pandemic and lots of Western countries have been faced with this decision. To suggest that they aren't all in this boat is, frankly, so wrong as to make answering the rest of your argument seem like a complete waste of time.

As for the criticism, to say what you've said there is basically to say no decision made by a government in a crisis can be criticised because they were doing "what's best for us", and to suggest that the criticism is being given with the benefit of hindsight. In this instance, it isn't - loads of people criticised this (including me) when they made that decision, for the same reasons they are still citing in criticism of it now. What's more is that if any government tried to change any policy in the way this one was, at extremely short notice and with such an ongoing and total lack of evidence to back that change up, I'd hope that people would criticise it.

Finally the last point is absolutely relevant; AZ has (like Pfizer) been tested on and authorised for use based on a certain dosing schedule. If the government turned around at short notice again and said they were going to ignore that, why would anyone not be concerned? Or are we just to hope they are doing whats best for us again?

I'll answer briefly,

I said not all countries (are in our situation) this isn't the same as saying no other western country... as in the way you seem to have interpreted it.

'to say what you've said there is basically to say no decision made by a government in a crisis can be criticised because they were doing "what's best for us' .....the only problem I didn't say that.

AZ has been found to have an increasing immune response over the longer 12 week interval in the more recently published reports.

 

[Brennan]

Point of interest, which surprised me.

Apparently Pfizer vaccines in the Royal Free London NHS trust have had second doses booked for 10 weeks, and the first batch starting on the 15th of March will actually be after 9 weeks.

So it would seem a considerable number of people won’t be waiting 12 weeks regardless. That trust covers 1.6 million people according to their website.

 

[tsubaki]

I'll answer briefly,

I said not all countries (are in our situation) this isn't the same as saying no other western country... as in the way you seem to have interpreted it.

'to say what you've said there is basically to say no decision made by a government in a crisis can be criticised because they were doing "what's best for us' .....the only problem I didn't say that.

AZ has been found to have an increasing immune response over the longer 12 week interval in the more recently published reports.

I think your words on the subject speak for themselves.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

I think your words on the subject speak for themselves.

Yes, no criticism just for the sake of it and no compulsion to oppose because it suits my ideals. Confront the crisis as it is now, and not how we got here, is a better way for me.

 

[BlueToff]

From my phone it was second on bbc, nowhere on sky. It was not on either page via my laptop. Had it not been for the much maligned social media their disturbing corruption would barely have been reported at all.

He won't be resigning and there won't be pressure on him to resign. In this government you tow the line and all manner of evil is accepted

I mean I'm telling you that on my laptop it was on the first page. Multiple other posters have also shown screenshots.

I'm just not sure how you can say it was hardly or would have been hardly reported. It's literally on every major news site?

I agree on the second point - but this is just one of many, many factors in why he should resign.