The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
I was confused by that as well. I assume the common cold mutates so much and as its effects are fairly mild (no doubt some people get complications such as chest infections and pneumonia but very few) it doesn't justify the cost.Stevo_666 said:
Common cold - agree, there isn't one. But 'flu - what are the annual 'flu jabs that we are offered every autumn if not a vaccine?First.Aspect said:
Given the vast economic value (and thus commercial value) of a vaccine to the flu or common cold, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes. Could take a while. Might not be possible. Those economies holding out for one, like NZ, could be the worst off in the end. We just don't know yet.
https://nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/0 -
Is this the one where he urged people to stay at home and self isolate... then drove to Chequers.pangolin said:You guys watched Boris' video?
https://youtu.be/K6oH1cjW1VM
I do wonder if this experience has changed his feelings for the NHS. It's hard to imagine him describing it as "powered by love" a few months ago.
May be this should be in the irony thread0 -
I should add, that link is all about the risks of non approved vaccines in animals. Seems likely that most of it applies though (except the parts about not being sure how much a vaccine might impact the milk production of your cows).- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
No.surrey_commuter said:
Is this the one where he urged people to stay at home and self isolate... then drove to Chequers.pangolin said:You guys watched Boris' video?
https://youtu.be/K6oH1cjW1VM
I do wonder if this experience has changed his feelings for the NHS. It's hard to imagine him describing it as "powered by love" a few months ago.
May be this should be in the irony thread- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
most vaccines are very safe vs. the alternative (of course they're the ones that made it through testing, not the ones that proved ineffective or too risky)Stevo_666 said:
I saw that certain vaccine programmes have been allowed to skip the animal testing stage and proceed directly to human tests.pangolin said:
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.
https://livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-no-animal-testing.html
However my question remains about what the possible side effects could be: if anyone knows more about it, I'm all ears.
a small number people may become extremely ill or die (things like allergies, developing autoimmune conditions), but across the population the vaccine is going to cause far less damage than no vaccine
yellow fever vaccine is an example where more care is needed, if you're old enough or have certain medical conditions then personnel at the vaccination centre may decide you are better off without it (you can then be given medical dispensation for a yellow fever certificate without being vaccinated), that's even though yellow fever is a nasty disease with an overall mortality rate much higher than is apparent for covid-19
cdc say...More serious reactions happen rarely after yellow fever vaccine. These can include:
Nervous system reactions such as inflammation of the brain (encephalitis) and/or spinal cord covering (meningitis), or Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), among others.
Life-threatening severe illness with organ dysfunction or failure.
People 60 years and older and people with weakened immune systems might be more likely to experience serious reactions to yellow fever vaccine.my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Could be the case.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Common cold - agree, there isn't one. But flu - what are the annual jabs that we are offered every autumn if not a vaccine?First.Aspect said:
Given the vast economic value (and thus commercial value) of a vaccine to the flu or common cold, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes. Could take a while. Might not be possible. Those economies holding out for one, like NZ, could be the worst off in the end. We just don't know yet.
https://nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/
Totally wild conjecture would be that one of the challenges is that one reason that CV19 is deadly is that the immune system turns on the organs of the body... you'd want to be sure that the vaccine didn't have that unfortunate side-effect."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Good find, thanks pangolin.pangolin said:
This is interestingStevo_666 said:
I saw that certain vaccine programmes have been allowed to skip the animal testing stage and proceed directly to human tests.pangolin said:
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.
https://livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-no-animal-testing.html
However my question remains about what the possible side effects could be: if anyone knows more about it, I'm all ears.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/cvmp-reflection-paper-risks-should-be-considered-prior-use-unauthorised-vaccines-emergency_en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiV6er8v-PoAhU1QRUIHfEzBNEQFjAJegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw36NMc1hxixsJZesRbxx2GH&cshid=1586715581434
Risk of it remaining virulent
Risk of it re-activating (becoming virulent I guess)
Risk it is not 100% effective (that would be bad, if lots of people thought they were safe and weren't)
Quality control
Uncertainty over shelf life
Etc
Edit: and as rjsterry says, risk of allergens, though I guess this is more of a known quantity as long as you're sure what went into it!
The document also recognises that there will be situations where there are risks of not doing complete testing/doing shortened testing, but it may be judged that the benefits outweigh the risks."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yes, I think that's where we're at isn't it? i.e. we've gone straight to human testing on at least 1 vaccine.Stevo_666 said:
Good find, thanks pangolin.pangolin said:
This is interestingStevo_666 said:
I saw that certain vaccine programmes have been allowed to skip the animal testing stage and proceed directly to human tests.pangolin said:
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.
https://livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-no-animal-testing.html
However my question remains about what the possible side effects could be: if anyone knows more about it, I'm all ears.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/cvmp-reflection-paper-risks-should-be-considered-prior-use-unauthorised-vaccines-emergency_en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiV6er8v-PoAhU1QRUIHfEzBNEQFjAJegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw36NMc1hxixsJZesRbxx2GH&cshid=1586715581434
Risk of it remaining virulent
Risk of it re-activating (becoming virulent I guess)
Risk it is not 100% effective (that would be bad, if lots of people thought they were safe and weren't)
Quality control
Uncertainty over shelf life
Etc
Edit: and as rjsterry says, risk of allergens, though I guess this is more of a known quantity as long as you're sure what went into it!
The document also recognises that there will be situations where there are risks of not doing complete testing/doing shortened testing, but it may be judged that the benefits outweigh the risks.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Heavy on the criticism bit light on the solution. Once you accept there is not a silver bullet you might gain some perspective.rick_chasey said:
So what is the good news in the U.K. peaking mucher higher than the Italy?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
I mean, f@ck me, thousands more are dying than in other comparable nations and it’s all “you’re a doomonger”.
Strap on a pair and smell the sh!t.0 -
This is a common theme in cancer patients. Do you want to get all critical of what every cancer charity has been peddling for the last ten years.morstar said:
Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.rjsterry said:Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?
*something I recognise, shall we say.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.0 -
Have offered plenty of suggestions, you just need to pay more attention.john80 said:
Heavy on the criticism bit light on the solution. Once you accept there is not a silver bullet you might gain some perspective.rick_chasey said:
So what is the good news in the U.K. peaking mucher higher than the Italy?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
I mean, f@ck me, thousands more are dying than in other comparable nations and it’s all “you’re a doomonger”.
Strap on a pair and smell the sh!t.
Lockdown sooner so you can get on top of testing, then you test and track.
That then allows for more specific measures that don’t involve such a gigantic lockdown for so long.0 -
Really? I'd say cancer charities are quite careful to distance themselves from this sort of thing.john80 said:
This is a common theme in cancer patients. Do you want to get all critical of what every cancer charity has been peddling for the last ten years.morstar said:
Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.rjsterry said:Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?
*something I recognise, shall we say.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.
They use the term fight to recognise the struggle. I'm not aware they link it to outcome for exactly the reason of portraying losing the battle as a personal failing.
For clarification, Raabs comment was made before he recovered. i.e. he will recover because he's a fighter.0 -
Where we disagree is that you solution was feasible or workable given the UKs size, culture andnplace in Europe. There is a reason London was first to get a number of cases. It is not just SAs experience that is why we have not reacted the same way as South Korea. There has been many a twat on Facebook singing the praises of New Zealand withoit thinking of the long term downsides.rick_chasey said:
Have offered plenty of suggestions, you just need to pay more attention.john80 said:
Heavy on the criticism bit light on the solution. Once you accept there is not a silver bullet you might gain some perspective.rick_chasey said:
So what is the good news in the U.K. peaking mucher higher than the Italy?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
I mean, f@ck me, thousands more are dying than in other comparable nations and it’s all “you’re a doomonger”.
Strap on a pair and smell the sh!t.
Lockdown sooner so you can get on top of testing, then you test and track.
That then allows for more specific measures that don’t involve such a gigantic lockdown for so long.0 -
Seol & Korea managed.
The warning signs were there and the U.K. deliberately chose to accept and not bother till it was too late.0 -
The only thing that is telling is that it's a figure of speech, something people say to be positive in a dire situation. A generic sentence to inspire hope.john80 said:
This is a common theme in cancer patients. Do you want to get all critical of what every cancer charity has been peddling for the last ten years.morstar said:
Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.rjsterry said:Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?
*something I recognise, shall we say.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.
If he said 'Well, I guess he stands half a chance' it wouldn't seem quite as positive to the general public, who have direct empathy with the situation.0 -
You are very much in the minority if you think the UK population is as compliant as those two nations. Your inability to see that is revealing. Without a body count the cops would be out controlling riots with the current measures being brought in.rick_chasey said:Seol & Korea managed.
The warning signs were there and the U.K. deliberately chose to accept and not bother till it was too late.0 -
But most nations missed that boat and even with hindsight probably still would. That we are slightly worse than Italy & Spain but broadly similar says more about the virulence of the disease and the fact that the variance in spreads is probably more to do with slightly different demographics and population densities.rick_chasey said:
Have offered plenty of suggestions, you just need to pay more attention.john80 said:
Heavy on the criticism bit light on the solution. Once you accept there is not a silver bullet you might gain some perspective.rick_chasey said:
So what is the good news in the U.K. peaking mucher higher than the Italy?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
I mean, f@ck me, thousands more are dying than in other comparable nations and it’s all “you’re a doomonger”.
Strap on a pair and smell the sh!t.
Lockdown sooner so you can get on top of testing, then you test and track.
That then allows for more specific measures that don’t involve such a gigantic lockdown for so long.
I am not blindly defending a government I did not vote for and do not support but, conversely, I am not 100% sure any UK government would have aggressively pursued testing and lockdown so early.
I think next time, we may well do as the justification will be there.
However, still leaves the question about exit. Best case scenario is vaccine in September by the sounds of it. That is lockdown of 6-7 months which seems possible but damaging. This is however far from guaranteed. An 18 month lockdown is simply not possible. So, it's a heck of gamble to assume the September vaccine will happen or you eventually have to lift lockdown despite no material change to the virulence of the virus.
0 -
I don’t know anyone who would riot. Do you?john80 said:
You are very much in the minority if you think the UK population is as compliant as those two nations. Your inability to see that is revealing. Without a body count the cops would be out controlling riots with the current measures being brought in.rick_chasey said:Seol & Korea managed.
The warning signs were there and the U.K. deliberately chose to accept and not bother till it was too late.
Judging by the amount of snitching in the press and the general vibe i have read, I doubt there would be many rioters.
It’s tantamount to the brexiters claiming they’d riot.0 -
You should check the TFL passenger journey stats pre- lockdown. Virtually all sport shut down pre-lockdown with not so much as a quibble.john80 said:
You are very much in the minority if you think the UK population is as compliant as those two nations. Your inability to see that is revealing. Without a body count the cops would be out controlling riots with the current measures being brought in.rick_chasey said:Seol & Korea managed.
The warning signs were there and the U.K. deliberately chose to accept and not bother till it was too late.
Maybe you live in an area where people are itching to riot but down here the people and businesses were weeks ahead of Govt.
0 -
Don't know if this helps to inform but I found it informative on the search for a vaccine and why it is so difficult (and expensive)Stevo_666 said:
I saw that certain vaccine programmes have been allowed to skip the animal testing stage and proceed directly to human tests.pangolin said:
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.
https://livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-no-animal-testing.html
However my question remains about what the possible side effects could be: if anyone knows more about it, I'm all ears.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-we-really-develop-a-safe-effective-coronavirus-vaccine/
A vaccine before next Summer sounds unlikely
0 -
-
Call me PC but it needs careful wording. You can be positive, claim he is a fighter and in great care without linking those facts directly to the outcome. Because sure as shit, lots of fighters with great care have already lost the battle, as will many more.focuszing723 said:
The only thing that is telling is that it's a figure of speech, something people say to be positive in a dire situation. A generic sentence to inspire hope.john80 said:
This is a common theme in cancer patients. Do you want to get all critical of what every cancer charity has been peddling for the last ten years.morstar said:
Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.rjsterry said:Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?
*something I recognise, shall we say.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.
If he said 'Well, I guess he stands half a chance' it wouldn't seem quite as positive to the general public, who have direct empathy with the situation.
In the greater scheme of things, it's a minor point, but I think it is insensitive and badly worded.
Nuff said.0 -
I've already pointed out upthread that test and track no longer seems to be containing the problem in countries like Singapore and they are having to bring in additional restrictions. Here's another link on the issue in Singapore:rick_chasey said:
Have offered plenty of suggestions, you just need to pay more attention.john80 said:
Heavy on the criticism bit light on the solution. Once you accept there is not a silver bullet you might gain some perspective.rick_chasey said:
So what is the good news in the U.K. peaking mucher higher than the Italy?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
I mean, f@ck me, thousands more are dying than in other comparable nations and it’s all “you’re a doomonger”.
Strap on a pair and smell the sh!t.
Lockdown sooner so you can get on top of testing, then you test and track.
That then allows for more specific measures that don’t involve such a gigantic lockdown for so long.
https://cnet.com/news/singapore-had-the-coronavirus-under-control-now-its-locking-down-the-country/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As I've said the jury is out on this one. However the effort on producing a vaccine for this disease is unprecedented and some of the normal protocols are being shortcut (i.e. preliminary animal testing and the Bill Gates 'build the capacity before we are sure which one we will go for') will help.coopster_the_1st said:
Don't know if this helps to inform but I found it informative on the search for a vaccine and why it is so difficult (and expensive)Stevo_666 said:
I saw that certain vaccine programmes have been allowed to skip the animal testing stage and proceed directly to human tests.pangolin said:
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.
https://livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-no-animal-testing.html
However my question remains about what the possible side effects could be: if anyone knows more about it, I'm all ears.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-we-really-develop-a-safe-effective-coronavirus-vaccine/
A vaccine before next Summer sounds unlikely
And as the article says, we can't afford not to."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's right. There is presumably a recognition that the benefits outweigh the risks in this case.pangolin said:
Yes, I think that's where we're at isn't it? i.e. we've gone straight to human testing on at least 1 vaccine.Stevo_666 said:
Good find, thanks pangolin.pangolin said:
This is interestingStevo_666 said:
I saw that certain vaccine programmes have been allowed to skip the animal testing stage and proceed directly to human tests.pangolin said:
I don't know. I'm assuming the risk must be real enough for them to not ignore the testing process in times of crisis, or that's what they'd be doing.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly the last thing you want is something that doesn't work, or harms people in other ways. However as I mention above, given what a vaccine is, what are the possible side effects beyond giving people a dose of the disease itself? (Or failing to give you the required immunity so you then go and catch it).pangolin said:
If I was in charge I'd be very wary of releasing a high profile vaccine without being really certain there weren't harmful side effects given the progress the anti-vax movement has made even without an example like that.Stevo_666 said:
My admittedly non-expert understanding of a vaccine is that they are essentially weakened or 'dead' versions of the relevant pathogen (or specific chemical 'markers' from it) which are introduced into the body to allow an immune response to develop without you actually getting the disease.kingstonian said:pblakeney said:
According to an interview with one expert that I listened to finding a solution is fairly easy, and probably very quick. What takes time is the testing and ramping up mass manufacture and distribution, mainly testing. Don't want to get that bit wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I refuse to believe that it will take the smartest people on the planet with unlimited resources a year and a half to find a solution. My totally uneducated guess is that there will be series of mitigating solutions before they crack it.Stevo_666 said:
I posted a link not far up thread where there were signs of optimism that a vaccine was possible by this autumn. Here you go:-surrey_commuter said:
Farrah thanks we will have a vaccine a lot sooner than 18 monthsrjsterry said:
Standby for claims that Prof Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a pandemics expert on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is part of the LMS, too.kingstongraham said:
No searches involved... I didn't preselect which sites, and didn't know what would be there.Stevo_666 said:
You may not have to, but some people probably did. And you missed the related 'UK' bit.kingstongraham said:
Do you think that you need to specifically enter that search term to get negative news about the virus at the moment?Stevo_666 said:
+1.First.Aspect said:
Scotland's is half that of England. They squeezed the Murrayfield match in while they could. Same policies, much lower population density.rick_chasey said:If you compare Ireland to England, England has a 2.5x higher death rate per capita right now.
I guess that’s the difference between cancelling st Patrick’s day and letting Cheltenham happen.
I've been watching your posts on here for a couple of weeks Rick and they are unbalanced. Everything is bad. The UK is terrible. We should have done more. Of everything.
I think you need to step away from the news somehow.
I've said the same thing and to be fair its not just Rick. It wasn't that long back that somebody commented on how certain people must be googling 'negative UK ÇOVID news' or similar every morning before posting.
I'd love to see some of this lot running the show instead of the government.
It's just generally a bad news story at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-as-early-as-september-according-to-scientist-11971804
Current estimates range from 6-18 months, so still anybody's guess. Also there is the question of having a vaccine and being able to dish it out in sufficiently large quantities etc. Although there is clearly a very large amount of effort going into this.
You’re spot on, it is the testing in particular that takes a lot of time. And that bit is so important - we can’t run the risk of having a vaccine which has nasty side effects.
I can understand the point about nasty side effects when you are talking about drugs as opposed to vaccines; but I would have thought that the main side effect you need to avoid for any vaccine is giving people a dose of the disease? If that is the case then the key challenge is making sure that any possible vaccine creates the required immune response, rather than avoiding side effects.
Genuine question.
https://livescience.com/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-no-animal-testing.html
However my question remains about what the possible side effects could be: if anyone knows more about it, I'm all ears.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/cvmp-reflection-paper-risks-should-be-considered-prior-use-unauthorised-vaccines-emergency_en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiV6er8v-PoAhU1QRUIHfEzBNEQFjAJegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw36NMc1hxixsJZesRbxx2GH&cshid=1586715581434
Risk of it remaining virulent
Risk of it re-activating (becoming virulent I guess)
Risk it is not 100% effective (that would be bad, if lots of people thought they were safe and weren't)
Quality control
Uncertainty over shelf life
Etc
Edit: and as rjsterry says, risk of allergens, though I guess this is more of a known quantity as long as you're sure what went into it!
The document also recognises that there will be situations where there are risks of not doing complete testing/doing shortened testing, but it may be judged that the benefits outweigh the risks."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah, fair point. Perhaps it is an unfortunate term, given the people who will be lost to this virus.morstar said:
Call me PC but it needs careful wording. You can be positive, claim he is a fighter and in great care without linking those facts directly to the outcome. Because sure as censored , lots of fighters with great care have already lost the battle, as will many more.focuszing723 said:
The only thing that is telling is that it's a figure of speech, something people say to be positive in a dire situation. A generic sentence to inspire hope.john80 said:
This is a common theme in cancer patients. Do you want to get all critical of what every cancer charity has been peddling for the last ten years.morstar said:
Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.rjsterry said:Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?
*something I recognise, shall we say.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.
If he said 'Well, I guess he stands half a chance' it wouldn't seem quite as positive to the general public, who have direct empathy with the situation.
In the greater scheme of things, it's a minor point, but I think it is insensitive and badly worded.
Nuff said.0 -
Professor Gilbert has said that human trials are set to take place within the next fortnight, and that she has been working seven days a week to get a vaccine rushed through.
She told The Times newspaper: "I think there's a high chance that it will work based on other things that we have done with this type of vaccine.
"It's not just a hunch and as every week goes by we have more data to look at. I would go for 80%, that's my personal view."
She added that having something ready by the autumn is "just about possible if everything goes perfectly", but warned that "nobody can promise it's going to work".
----------------------------------------------------
There is an awful amount of caveats in there.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Clearly. That's why this autumn is the shortest feasible timescale that is being put forward for a workable vaccine.pblakeney said:Professor Gilbert has said that human trials are set to take place within the next fortnight, and that she has been working seven days a week to get a vaccine rushed through.
She told The Times newspaper: "I think there's a high chance that it will work based on other things that we have done with this type of vaccine.
"It's not just a hunch and as every week goes by we have more data to look at. I would go for 80%, that's my personal view."
She added that having something ready by the autumn is "just about possible if everything goes perfectly", but warned that "nobody can promise it's going to work".
----------------------------------------------------
There is an awful amount of caveats in there."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And in fairness to Raab, I've now actually watched the clip rather than just reading the transcript. It appears it is an attempt to project more of a personal note than purely a scripted piece.focuszing723 said:
Yeah, fair point. Perhaps it is an unfortunate term, given the people who will be lost to this virus.morstar said:
Call me PC but it needs careful wording. You can be positive, claim he is a fighter and in great care without linking those facts directly to the outcome. Because sure as censored , lots of fighters with great care have already lost the battle, as will many more.focuszing723 said:
The only thing that is telling is that it's a figure of speech, something people say to be positive in a dire situation. A generic sentence to inspire hope.john80 said:
This is a common theme in cancer patients. Do you want to get all critical of what every cancer charity has been peddling for the last ten years.morstar said:
Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.rjsterry said:Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?
*something I recognise, shall we say.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.
If he said 'Well, I guess he stands half a chance' it wouldn't seem quite as positive to the general public, who have direct empathy with the situation.
In the greater scheme of things, it's a minor point, but I think it is insensitive and badly worded.
Nuff said.0 -
Isn't it just a turn of phrase people use to try and help us feel like our destiny is within our hands slightly more, and to try and put a positive spin on things. I don't think anyone actually believes people lose their "fight" against a disease due to some personal weakness...then again I wouldn't think people would burn down 5g masts, so maybe I give too much credit.focuszing723 said:
Yeah, fair point. Perhaps it is an unfortunate term, given the people who will be lost to this virus.morstar said:
Call me PC but it needs careful wording. You can be positive, claim he is a fighter and in great care without linking those facts directly to the outcome. Because sure as censored , lots of fighters with great care have already lost the battle, as will many more.focuszing723 said:
The only thing that is telling is that it's a figure of speech, something people say to be positive in a dire situation. A generic sentence to inspire hope.john80 said:
This is a common theme in cancer patients. Do you want to get all critical of what every cancer charity has been peddling for the last ten years.morstar said:
Agreed. I thought Raabs, he’s a fighter comment was telling.rjsterry said:Some of the comments from friends and acquaintances on Johnson's hospital admission are interesting. He seems to have been one of those people* who at some level think illness is something that happens to other people and is somehow indicative of some lack of resolve or spirit. Might this attitude have had some impact on the timing government decisions?
*something I recognise, shall we say.
The implication being that if you die, you’re a quitter.
If he said 'Well, I guess he stands half a chance' it wouldn't seem quite as positive to the general public, who have direct empathy with the situation.
In the greater scheme of things, it's a minor point, but I think it is insensitive and badly worded.
Nuff said.
Raab saying, well it's 50/50 there's nothing to do but wait it out, nay have been more accurate but probably less reassuring for many.0
