Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, antrin said:

Sorry, Buddie…

…but I’ve been following the interesting development of this pandemic closely and so far haven’t been convinced by any suggestions that pandemic scientists are not offering sane, sensible, evidence-based information to the politicians.

 

There have been fruitcakes aplenty, of course….

So, just for starters  -

Boosters for everyone - SAGE backed this, others such as Dr Sarah Gilbert and others disagreed.

Repeated lockdowns and restrictions, even when the vast majority are vaccinated.

Vaccine passports, even though vaccines don't stop transmission so this is not a public health measure - some like Alysson Pollock from Newcastle University have been very vocal on this.

Their "sane advice" is open to scrutiny, or at least it should be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, Slarti said:

So the unvaccinated are more likely to have the earlier "more dangerous" ones? You could be forgiven for thinking that the vaccines were doing good then. :whistle

Against delta, perhaps.

Against omicron, not so good.

My point is the government told us that 2 doses of the vaccine was ineffective against omicron, but your immunity was much better with the booster. This was an attempt to get people to get boosted, which millions did - but there was no evidence to back up their claims. They maybe hoped it would, and took a punt - on the basis it wouldn't make things worse, but their claim that it would make things better had almost no scientific basis, and they knew it.

This is exactly how the government have treated the public- condescending, lacking in transparency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against delta, perhaps.
Against omicron, not so good.
My point is the government told us that 2 doses of the vaccine was ineffective against omicron, but your immunity was much better with the booster. This was an attempt to get people to get boosted, which millions did - but there was no evidence to back up their claims. They maybe hoped it would, and took a punt - on the basis it wouldn't make things worse, but their claim that it would make things better had almost no scientific basis, and they knew it.
This is exactly how the government have treated the public- condescending, lacking in transparency. 
I think you just don't understand what the stats are actually saying. To be able to say that the booster isn't offering protection from omicron you would have to look at more than just infected people. Just saying that, of those infected, more "boosted" people are getting the more prevalent and contagious variant than the other variants does not mean that it isn't offering protection, it just means that the the most prevalent and contagious variant is infecting more people, as you would expect. If you are looking for a 100% guarantee of no infection after 3 jags then you are onto plums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Slarti said:
46 minutes ago, Hendo said:
Against delta, perhaps.
Against omicron, not so good.
My point is the government told us that 2 doses of the vaccine was ineffective against omicron, but your immunity was much better with the booster. This was an attempt to get people to get boosted, which millions did - but there was no evidence to back up their claims. They maybe hoped it would, and took a punt - on the basis it wouldn't make things worse, but their claim that it would make things better had almost no scientific basis, and they knew it.
This is exactly how the government have treated the public- condescending, lacking in transparency. 

I think you just don't understand what the stats are actually saying. To be able to say that the booster isn't offering protection from omicron you would have to look at more than just infected people. Just saying that, of those infected, more "boosted" people are getting the more prevalent and contagious variant than the other variants does not mean that it isn't offering protection, it just means that the the most prevalent and contagious variant is infecting more people, as you would expect. If you are looking for a 100% guarantee of no infection after 3 jags then you are onto plums.

It means that of people infected, those boosted are most likely to be infected. You might say that that's to be expected, but if the govt view that the booster protected against the newer variant, you would expect numbers for boosted to be less than other groups - and they are much more. This might not disprove original govt statements but certainly cast doubt over them.

Which brings me back to the main point - the govt claimed the booster was what was needed to protect people against the new variant, but provided no evidence of this. It is manipulation of evidence and people.

I get that this is difficult to hear, as people have placed their trust in those in authority and the vaccines to get us out of this mess. But here we are, 83% double jabbed, more than 50% boosted, and restrictions just re-introduced. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hendo said:

It means that of people infected, those boosted are most likely to be infected. You might say that that's to be expected, but if the govt view that the booster protected against the newer variant, you would expect numbers for boosted to be less than other groups - and they are much more. This might not disprove original govt statements but certainly cast doubt over them.

Which brings me back to the main point - the govt claimed the booster was what was needed to protect people against the new variant, but provided no evidence of this. It is manipulation of evidence and people.

I get that this is difficult to hear, as people have placed their trust in those in authority and the vaccines to get us out of this mess. But here we are, 83% double jabbed, more than 50% boosted, and restrictions just re-introduced. Go figure.

No, it f**kin diesn’t!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the isolation period, the average contagious period is 10 days after the onset of symptoms.

If it's very mild, and for many, almost unnoticeable, and you don't do a test for, just for a number, after 6 days, surely you should be able to resume a normal life as soon as you have 2 days showing a negative LFT?

There shouldn't be a set period, causing people, business's and services avoidable costs?

As @Cookie Monster mentioned, this depends on people being honest, but the current rules also depend on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scottish Covid cases hit record levels over Christmas - BBC News

With respect to hospital admissions and attendance at A & E, it looks like it's make or break time. Fingers crossed.

The number of track and traced individuals must be increasing significantly too. That's most likely going to impact negatively upon places of employment.

I think the Scottish government's hand will be forced with respect to reducing the isolation period.

 

Quote

 

The daily case numbers recorded over the 25, 26 and 27 December were the highest totals seen throughout the entire pandemic.

Christmas Day saw 8,252 cases. Boxing Day registered 11,030 confirmed cases and Monday's daily total was 10,562.

The Scottish government warned that due to the lag in reporting, the actual number of Covid cases was likely to be higher.

 

 

Edited by FTOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Scottish Covid cases hit record levels over Christmas - BBC News

With respect to hospital admissions and attendance at A & E, it looks like it's make or break time. Fingers crossed.

The number of track and traced individuals must be increasing significantly too. That's most likely going to impact negatively upon places of employment.

I think the Scottish government's hand will be forced with respect to reducing the isolation period.

 

 

Where did they get these figures as no figures are being released until 29th Dec?

From the gov.scot website............

Updated at 2pm to provide the latest data on COVID-19 in Scotland. There will be no updates published on 25-28 December and 1-4 January. On Wednesday 29 December and Wednesday 5 January, we will provide the latest daily data for that day and the previous 4 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did they get these figures as no figures are being released until 29th Dec?
From the gov.scot website............
Updated at 2pm to provide the latest data on COVID-19 in Scotland. There will be no updates published on 25-28 December and 1-4 January. On Wednesday 29 December and Wednesday 5 January, we will provide the latest daily data for that day and the previous 4 days.
Same place as we get the figures over a weekend. It tells you in the story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smcc said:

Never happy, are you? You would have been moaning if they had not published these figures today!🤥

Away and gies piece, I'm legitimately asking as I was aware there would be no figures released until 29th, which is stated quite clearly on the Scottish Gov website. 

What's your problem? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Away and gies piece, I'm legitimately asking as I was aware there would be no figures released until 29th, which is stated quite clearly on the Scottish Gov website. 
What's your problem? 
See that's what you thought you read instead of reading what was actually wrote.

Yes it said that they wouldn't publish the figures. But that was regarding where it was written. So no they never published them on the website, as they didn't have every figure due to the holidays. But released the figures they did have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

See that's what you thought you read instead of reading what was actually wrote.

Yes it said that they wouldn't publish the figures. But that was regarding where it was written. So no they never published them on the website, as they didn't have every figure due to the holidays. But released the figures they did have.

Eh? :lol:

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...