Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[superkeeper]

I'm not sure about specific numbers but you're right in your point.

The % that are testing positive is overall a more useful sign especially when the testing numbers vary so much week on week.

True, but still somewhat encouraging that even with the increase in testing, cases are still down from last week for both Monday and today. The other percentage that’s also encouraging to look at, is that declining death rate, as that’s been declining quicker than the cases and has been that way for a while now. Hopefully we’re not a million miles away from every day being below three figures, which I know still isn’t great, but it’s better compared to where we were even just a couple of weeks ago

 

[roydo]

Didn’t you explain that to Dave yesterday as well or maybe I need a beer.....

Yes.

 

[Neiler]

It’s all in the contracts. Remember when the EU were going to take AZ to court over this...that’s gone very quiet because they know they were wrong. They are now acting like children screaming ‘but it isn’t fair’...pathetic.

It seems more is coming out in the wash then initially reported, more vaccines are produced and provided through the EU then any region in the world to other regions. There is a defacto ban in the UK and US - to exporting vaccines and ingredients. Just look at the UK figure 9 mill of the jabs administered in the UK have been provided through the EU. Where would the UK be if the EU took the same approach as the UK. I hope and dont think they will ban exports - because its to serious of an issue. But i do think there will be ramifications here going on to the future.

 

[peteblue]

U.K. vaccines .....290K jabs given yesterday.....total first jabs 22,809,829.....total second jabs 1,254,353 ....giving an overall total of 24,064,182........

 

[roydo]

Yeah, but we were told (regardless of whatever happens in terms of lockdown timings) that the vaccinated vulnerable would be ok...hence the possibility of a return to something like 'normal'.

The Whitty remark (and non-repsonse to it) looked like political theatre in retrospect.

Witty/Whitty? Whatever.

It wasnt a remark. It was a clinical answer to a question about the possible outcomes if the reopen was accelerated, as per the CRG idea.

We were never told that the elderly and vulnerable would all be 100% protected, but the plan was to vax the 9 groups of the clinically most vulnerable to serious illness and hospitalisation, to minimise the impact on the NHS, and of course, deaths. That seems to working.

 

[peteblue]

That's proven not to be the case though with the EU shortfall though mate.

35 million is the number of doses total to 125 countries exported from the EU.

minus 250k that they wouldn’t send to Aus......

 

[peteblue]

It seems more is coming out in the wash then initially reported, more vaccines are produced and provided through the EU then any region in the world to other regions. There is a defacto ban in the UK and US - to exporting vaccines and ingredients. Just look at the UK figure 9 mill of the jabs administered in the UK have been provided through the EU. Where would the UK be if the EU took the same approach as the UK. I hope and dont think they will ban exports - because its to serious of an issue. But i do think there will be ramifications here going on to the future.

The EU are desperate to blame anyone bar themselves. The EU claim to produce more vaccines than anyone on the Planet, so can you explain why they have given less than half the jabs than the USA......

 

[Neiler]

The EU are desperate to blame anyone bar themselves. The EU claim to produce more vaccines than anyone on the Planet, so can you explain why they have given less than half the jabs than the USA......

The EU have been massively naïve in the main would be my take mate, they presumed goodwill and cooperation would exist amongst nations in my opinion, that has proven not to be the case with what is coming out today in terms of what the UK and USA in particular are doing. But once bitten, twice shy and all that - so be interesting to see what happens now and in the future. I think there will consequences, i hope its not now, but i can see them in the long grass.

Morally im happy with how things are now, i think the EU have captured the spirit of it not cutting of other nations as they are doing, personally and this is just my opinion, what's coming out today is ugly and wrong - i know we joke about it on here - but its vaccine nationalism being practiced by nations and I think it will lead to long term enmity and consequences. I think its quite damaging reputationally for the nations in question - just my opinion mind.

 

[peteblue]

The EU have been massively naïve in the main would be my take mate, they presumed goodwill and cooperation would exist amongst nations in my opinion, that has proven not to be the case with what is coming out today in terms of what the UK and USA in particular are doing. But once bitten, twice shy and all that - so be interesting to see what happens now and in the future. I think there will consequences, i hope its not now, but i can see them in the long grass.

Morally im happy with how things are now, i think the Eu have captured the spirit of it not cutting of other nations as they are doing,, personally and this is just personally, what's coming out today is ugly and wrong - o know we joke about it on here - but its vaccine nationalism being practiced by nations and I think it will lead to long enmity and consequences I think its quite damaging reputationally for the nations in question - just my opinion mind.

But you keep blaming the wrong people and excusing the EU. They screwed up. Now they want to blame anyone except themselves. They were not naive, they were the slow, ponderous bully trying to get a good deal and continued to negotiate prices while the U.K. facilities were built and starting production runs. They just cannot admit it. Unfortunately you are now making the excuses for them and attempting to blame the USA and U.K. .Even now they are making a pigs ear of it by suggesting that the USA is effectively imposing an export ban, then going to them cap in hand asking for any spare vaccines. Not being polite of course, oh no, first attack them, then demand vaccines. These people in the EU, all second raters to a man and woman, are a waste of space.....

 

[davek]

Witty/Whitty? Whatever.

It wasnt a remark. It was a clinical answer to a question about the possible outcomes if the reopen was accelerated, as per the CRG idea.

We were never told that the elderly and vulnerable would all be 100% protected, but the plan was to vax the 9 groups of the clinically most vulnerable to serious illness and hospitalisation, to minimise the impact on the NHS, and of course, deaths. That seems to working.

The numbers under the scenario Whitty outlined suggest a bit more than 'not 100% protected', though.

There's no point in downplaying what he said as "what's already been said". This is a step away from what was claimed regarding how the vulnerable would be saved from mortal danger. As said, that was always a huge claim, but it was claimed nevertheless...AND it's the type of viewpoint that informs the GOT Covid *Recovery* Group and their "unlock everything" attitude.

This is not just me confused by that last Whitty statement: @Neiler also stated he was perplexed, as just one example.

 

[roydo]

The numbers under the scenario Whitty outlined suggest a bit more than 'not 100% protected', though.

There's no point in downplaying what he said as "what's already been said". This is a step away from what was claimed regarding how the vulnerable would be saved from mortal danger. As said, that was always a huge claim, but it was claimed nevertheless...AND it's the type of viewpoint that informs the GOT Covid *Recovery* Group.

This is not just me confused by that last Whitty statement: @Neiler also stated his, as just one example.

Sake.

For the millionth time.

He was asked. "If we opened up quicker, (a'la CRG), what is your assessment of the consequence?"

He replied. "[Poor language removed]".

NO vaccine of anything is 100% effective. The longer we allow a 1st jab to become effective is good. The more folk that get a 2nd jab is good. That has been said time and time again. That is why we have the non negotiable 5 week breaks between the phases of re opening.

 

[SussexToffee]

Sake.

For the millionth time.

He was asked. "If we opened up quicker, (a'la CRG), what is your assessment of the consequence?"

He replied. "[Poor language removed]".

NO vaccine of anything is 100% effective. The longer we allow a 1st jab to become effective is good. The more folk that get a 2nd jab is good. That has been said time and time again. That is why we have the non negotiable 5 week breaks between the phases of re opening.

He’s such a dumbass, even making things up and ignoring you.

 

[davek]

Sake.

For the millionth time.

He was asked. "If we opened up quicker, (a'la CRG), what is your assessment of the consequence?"

He replied. "[Poor language removed]".

NO vaccine of anything is 100% effective. The longer we allow a 1st jab to become effective is good. The more folk that get a 2nd jab is good. That has been said time and time again. That is why we have the non negotiable 5 week breaks between the phases of re opening.

I've tackled that.

The claims previously of protection from the vaccine was not reliant on there being low infection rates - there'd be low fatality rates in any case amongst the vulnerable without the vaccine in that circumstance.

No, there are goalposts being shifted here. The vaccines have been portrayed as a backstop for all but the most very vulnerable. But the staggering figure Whitty gave in relation to a surge under a rushed unlocking of restrictions does not fit that bill. It suggests a greater failure rate for the vaccines amongst the vulnerable than has hitherto been suggested.

 

[peteblue]

I've tackled that.

The claims previously of protection from the vaccine was not reliant on there being low infection rates - there'd be low fatality rates in any case amongst the vulnerable without the vaccine in that circumstance.

No, there are goalposts being shifted here. The vaccines have been portrayed as a backstop for all but the most very vulnerable. But the staggering figure Whitty gave in relation to a surge under a rushed unlocking of restrictions does not fit that bill. It suggests a greater failure rate for the vaccines amongst the vulnerable than has hitherto been suggested.

You‘re just trying to cheer us all up ......

 

[Amw79]

The numbers under the scenario Whitty outlined suggest a bit more than 'not 100% protected', though.

There's no point in downplaying what he said as "what's already been said". This is a step away from what was claimed regarding how the vulnerable would be saved from mortal danger. As said, that was always a huge claim, but it was claimed nevertheless...AND it's the type of viewpoint that informs the GOT Covid *Recovery* Group and their "unlock everything" attitude.

This is not just me confused by that last Whitty statement: @Neiler also stated he was perplexed, as just one example.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Whitty’s statement about ‘those the vaccine won’t work on’ just referred to the known % that trials showed didn’t get immunity. The Pfizer is 95% after both doses (I think), so that’s still 1 in 20 people who won’t be protected.

So even if the entire population got vaccinated (which obviously won’t happen), there’d still be over 3m who wouldn’t have immunity.

Didn’t feel like new information to me, but maybe I missed something.