Politics
William Shakespeare
https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download
You know the japanese have often worn face masks in public - I wonder if anyone has any FLUE stats for that country - or is wearing masks just a japanese fad?
Alls well that ends well?
Are logistics in place to work this ?
UK has the best logistics people in the world.
Look at the NHS test and trace for example.
would seem pretty basic 6th form chemistry stuff
I hope it is just a small percentage.
Maybe do a few more clinical trials to check before rolling it out to millions of people?
Dec 9, 2020 -- 3:32PM, frog1000 wrote:
Yesterday they told us it was safe. Today apparently it is not for some people.Maybe do a few more clinical trials to check before rolling it out to millions of people?
Maybe let a few more thousand people die to prevent a couple of allergic reactions. Oh, how would we know that? By inducing exactly those same allergic reactions.
The only way to pick up rare and late adverse events is to vaccinate lots of people and wait. You can do this as part of a trial but it’s incredibly expensive and obviously the longer you wait, the longer you’re waiting to release the vaccine, which matters quite a lot in this context.
I have some allergic reactions ( dust , eggs...)
But will take the vaccine , I consider it my duty
a bowl of peanuts after having
vaccine jab either.
What has been missed from long term effects ? answer, no fooker knows because that hasn't been studied as it's been bloody fast tracked!!!!!!
Fauci was right...too quick.
At least she got a few days peace...
Same thing
Have a look at any prescribed or off the shelf drugs you have at home and you see a list of potential side effects albeit that the most serious ones are usually 1:10,000. In this case the risks are probably justified by the urgent need.
The point with this though is because of the conspiracy theorists and worry merchants out there it can't afford to take any negative hits, especially early on because it will simply reinforce what they already think and ramp up the hysteria.
The thing they will think is that it was only after the roll out began did they see this problem and missed it before, this feeds into the worry that they are cutting corners.
Dec 9, 2020 -- 4:21PM, Dotchinite wrote:
The rollout to the very old can be seen as a sort of trial to see if its safe before they give it to younger people who have a different risk profile. Amongst the old if one in 10 thousand had a bad reaction it would still be worth taking but for the younger ones it clearly wouldnt.
Depending on the nature of the reaction, yes, probably. You’d still likely want to vaccinate over 40s and perhaps 30-40s with other risk factors.
Dec 9, 2020 -- 3:53PM, Fatslogger wrote:
Dec 9, 2020 -- 4:32PM, frog1000 wrote:Yesterday they told us it was safe. Today apparently it is not for some people.Maybe do a few more clinical trials to check before rolling it out to millions of people?Maybe let a few more thousand people die to prevent a couple of allergic reactions. Oh, how would we know that? By inducing exactly those same allergic reactions. The only way to pick up rare and late adverse events is to vaccinate lots of people and wait. You can do this as part of a trial but it’s incredibly expensive and obviously the longer you wait, the longer you’re waiting to release the vaccine, which matters quite a lot in this context.
How many people did they vaccinate yesterday on day 1 to find out this problem?
How many in the trials were on medication, had allergies or were over 85? i.e. the type of people in the need of a vaccine.
It appears to have been rushed through with key groups being missed off the trials.
Its been approved and they are actually sticking it in people... but they haven't tested it against allergy's and haven't tested it on pregnant women
The stupidity of 2020 society really knows no bounds.. stupidly educated sadly.
She wasn't named because she was the first to take it. She was already named over 91 years ago!
And if anything happens to her, Bill Gates will know all about it since he now has full control of her. Someone has to watch these 90+ year olds.
How many people did they vaccinate yesterday on day 1 to find out this problem?
How many in the trials were on medication, had allergies or were over 85? i.e. the type of people in the need of a vaccine.
It appears to have been rushed through with key groups being missed off the trials.
Perhaps 5-10 thousand.
So how do you think we find out about side effects in people on medication (I think you’ve misinterpreted the trial report there, by the way), with allergies or over 85?
it’s incredibly expensive and obviously the longer you wait, the longer you’re waiting to release the vaccine, which matters quite a lot in this context.
So it's ££££££££££ before lives now. rushed to market for ££££
we've all in this together lol.
DNAR orders being applied to groups of vulnerable people.
Are DNAR orders being applied to groups of vulnerable people, or did that happen in a few instances early pandemic, to appropriately large amounts of criticism and stopped after that?
Now want orderly queues as they collect covid vaccine payments.
Comedy gold.
It’s comedy gold that consultations can happen without being face to face but vaccination can’t? You’re easily amused.
Realists seems more appropriate.
Most aren't conspiracy at all in fact...
and gov.... Done an amazing job @ ramping up hysteria. Little acorns grow!
£13.75 a jab.thats why they are only too pleased to see you now
Dec 10, 2020 -- 6:50AM, Fatslogger wrote:
Frog -How many people did they vaccinate yesterday on day 1 to find out this problem?How many in the trials were on medication, had allergies or were over 85? i.e. the type of people in the need of a vaccine.It appears to have been rushed through with key groups being missed off the trials.Perhaps 5-10 thousand. So how do you think we find out about side effects in people on medication (I think you’ve misinterpreted the trial report there, by the way), with allergies or over 85?
5-10 thousand. I will believe it when they publish the official figures.
On the trial the adverse reactions generally started after the second jab.
Dec 10, 2020 -- 9:45AM, nineteen points wrote:
fats, theres a will where theres a till.£13.75 a jab.thats why they are only too pleased to see you now
It’s not very much money for a procedure, even a very minor one. It’s not free to run a vaccine clinic, which happen in addition to the practices’ normal work, usually. If you’re talking about GPs vaccinating say 30m people in the next year, that’s less money than we spaffed on any number of PPE contracts that didn’t even deliver.
Now want to be rewarded for a (miracle) cure! That isnt a cure !
Comedy gold!
Dec 10, 2020 -- 11:10AM, frog1000 wrote:
Dec 10, 2020 -- 7:50AM, Fatslogger wrote:Frog -How many people did they vaccinate yesterday on day 1 to find out this problem?How many in the trials were on medication, had allergies or were over 85? i.e. the type of people in the need of a vaccine.It appears to have been rushed through with key groups being missed off the trials.Perhaps 5-10 thousand. So how do you think we find out about side effects in people on medication (I think you’ve misinterpreted the trial report there, by the way), with allergies or over 85?5-10 thousand. I will believe it when they publish the official figures.On the trial the adverse reactions generally started after the second jab.
I said perhaps. I agree, as with a lot of the vaccine stuff, we await robust published numbers. It’s going to have been a minimum of a few thousand a day though, across the 70 or so sites. Would be surprised if it’s not ramping up to 200 or so people per day for at least a proportion of the sites by now.
Dec 10, 2020 -- 12:09PM, shiny new shoes please wrote:
It's insulting (gp) abandon the public Now want to be rewarded for a (miracle) cure! That isnt a cure !Comedy gold!
It’s a vaccine, not a miracle cure. Injecting people isn’t a zero cost or zero time enterprise. A bit over a tenner per jab is a really, really small amount of money, by health care standards, even before you start accounting for the reduction in health care needed down the line following a successful vaccination programme and even that doesn’t include the massive economic benefits to emerging from the pandemic (which we’re going to throw away and more with Brexit but there you go).
Going to phone consultations isn’t abandoning patients, it’s practicing safely in a pandemic.
state sponsored and supported.
More deaths from cancelled appointments then covid.
More proverty
More tax.
Dec 10, 2020 -- 12:25PM, nineteen points wrote:
still in a pandemic apparently so is safety out the window when moneys involved?
How do you think you could administer a vaccine over a phone?
Dec 10, 2020 -- 12:25PM, shiny new shoes please wrote:
Wrong total abandonment pushing a digital agenda. Shops stayed open! GP shut. state sponsored and supported.More deaths from cancelled appointments then covid.More provertyMore tax.
GPs were open when shops were shut. Not letting people in the doors while shifting work remotely isn’t the same as shutting and having people in the same physical location would have been unsafe, in a lot of cases. I do think practices could have opened their doors more in June - August (and some did) but then they’d have needed to shut them again anyway.
You are utterly making up that there were more deaths from cancelled appointments than Covid. Please supply evidence to support this view, which shows a touching faith in the effect of GP appointments to preserve life that isn’t supported by the facts. Very, very few medical consultations of any kind are life saving.
I am neither in favour of poverty or more taxation on the poor but the economic consequences of the pandemic can’t be wished away with the notion that if we’d just carried on as normal all would have been fine.
200,000 missed cancer appointments Ireland since march.
GPs being shut since feb.
Facts.
But I don't know.
Dec 10, 2020 -- 12:31PM, nineteen points wrote:
no fats your dead right.just the same as i couldnt diagnose
Dec 10, 2020 -- 12:34PM, shiny new shoes please wrote:
The figures will be years to come!200,000 missed cancer appointments Ireland since march.GPs being shut since feb.Facts.
Yes. Depends on what you mean by cancer appointments, I suspect. What was your alternative? Bringing vulnerable cancer patients up to busy clinics? How do you think these decisions were made?
Public are stupid but maybe not as thick as gov wud like.
and aussies have thrown a billion quid vacc down the toilet
and expert/pundits mock those who have doubts about vaccs
despite the right wing media,barrington lovers calling an end to this a dozen times since march its going no where before the spring
and with xmas /new yr to come,we,ll have the 100,000 up by march,12 months since it started
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=region&areaName=London
Those boroughs that had deaths in the spring before the government tried prolong this... lets see what happens to them this winter. Then we should finally have an answer.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=ltla&areaName=Brent
Havering had the lowest deaths in London in the spring. Now....
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=ltla&areaName=Havering
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=ltla&areaName=Harrow
Those hit hard early take more care later?
If only we had some way of doing research without
right wing whack jobs making silly claims.
Or maybe more immunity and less people prone to dying from the disease because more died earlier in the year?
Time will tell.
whack jobs spouting rubbish, eh?
Incidentally, London seems to have up about 30 deaths a day, so isn’t miles below the whole country’s rates but I’m struggling to get really accurate stats on death per region. What do you have?
Dec 13, 2020 -- 12:35PM, Fatslogger wrote:
I can hear those goalposts creaking as they move. Is there a second wave? Has there been lots of death? That there’s less death in London is entirely compatible with what I’ve said all along. If only we’d exposed the rest of the country to London’s huge death rate in the early pandemic, things would be great now, wouldn’t they?Incidentally, London seems to have up about 30 deaths a day, so isn’t miles below the whole country’s rates but I’m struggling to get really accurate stats on death per region. What do you have?
Areas that were not hit much in the spring are likely to have a bigger seasonal uptick than those that were not.
For instance Czech Republic and Slovenia that had nothing much in the spring have suffered badly this autumn.
Excess deaths for England do not seem to be in a 2nd wave.
Some good data on excess deaths here:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
see the curves.
If only you could google such a map(s)
Why of why are they so difficult to discover?
Areas that were not hit much in the spring are likely to have a bigger seasonal uptick than those that were not.
For instance Czech Republic and Slovenia that had nothing much in the spring have suffered badly this autumn.
Excess deaths for England do not seem to be in a 2nd wave.
Some good data on excess deaths here:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
The graphs you link to show deaths in England over their substantial increase line for the last few weeks. If by second wave of deaths you mean massive increases in deaths as per first wave, I agree with you, that’s not happening. If you just mean a large number of excess deaths then it’s pretty clear we are in one.
Hospital beds are less full than the five year average.
If you look at Scotland the figures this winter seem a lot lower than 2018.
Of course there is a long way to go but susceptible people can only die once.
imposed for covid.
Dec 13, 2020 -- 2:32PM, frog1000 wrote:
For England are the excess death figures bigger on the chart than 2017 and 2018 winters?Hospital beds are less full than the five year average.If you look at Scotland the figures this winter seem a lot lower than 2018.Of course there is a long way to go but susceptible people can only die once.
Do you like cherries? You pick a few. Overall autumn / winter deaths aren’t far beyond a bad but normal year for England but they are for the last few weeks, following on from when the SARS-CoV2 virus which you keep saying won’t kill many (more) people, really started surging again, in a way you had said it wouldn’t.
No, there isn’t an outlandish amount of excess death now, but there is excess death, despite the argument you almost certainly made first time around too about how many of the people who were due to die already had. Doesn’t seem to be the case, does it?
I always thought that the different waves of a pandemic were due to mutations of a disease rather than a seasonal resurgence.
