The big Coronavirus thread

1…189190192194195…1347

Comments

  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    Just had an email from the company we booked our now cancelled ski trip with. The airline (Air Canada) are not providing a refund, but instead going down the route of holding a credit in our name which we can use for a future booking with them. If we chose to not use that credit, we'd have to try to claim for the lost amount through travel insurance.

    I just saw on the BBS website that other airlines are taking the same approach.

    I realise that we are living in unprecedented times, but it feels odd that you can book a flight with a company to travel to a specific destination at a specific time, and they can cancel it with no opportunity to travel on that same route for many months and then not be obliged to refund the booking. As it happens we are looking to re-book our holiday for next year, but many won't and will then be arm-wrestling with their travel insurance policy.......
  • Jeremy.89
    Jeremy.89 Posts: 457
    First.Aspect said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    And deaths among young people have actually fallen, which implies that there are other causes of death that have reduced because of lockdown.

    No one driving, or doing anything more interesting tbf.
    There is an interesting stat about far more people died post 9/11 on the roads than died in the Towers.
    It is interesting but is it true? And what does it mean? More people died on the roads that day fleeing the towers, more people died in the US on the roads that year etc. etc.
    Possibly this is the stat referred to


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-road-deaths

    Basically the change in behaviour (driving instead of flying) was nearly as deadly as the original attack.

    If fewer younger people are dying, it would suggest that for the time being we are swapping dangerous behaviours for safer ones. Telecommuting for car commuting, netflix instead of getting smashed in clubs, zwift instead of road racing...

    (Obviously the death rates of road racing isn't going to register on annual statistics!)

  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,510
    kingstonian said:

    Just had an email from the company we booked our now cancelled ski trip with. The airline (Air Canada) are not providing a refund, but instead going down the route of holding a credit in our name which we can use for a future booking with them. If we chose to not use that credit, we'd have to try to claim for the lost amount through travel insurance.

    I just saw on the BBS website that other airlines are taking the same approach.

    I realise that we are living in unprecedented times, but it feels odd that you can book a flight with a company to travel to a specific destination at a specific time, and they can cancel it with no opportunity to travel on that same route for many months and then not be obliged to refund the booking. As it happens we are looking to re-book our holiday for next year, but many won't and will then be arm-wrestling with their travel insurance policy.......

    I suspect that it is good business policy to break the law in this instance, if a sufficient number of people who are entitled to refunds don't take them. The news is full of reports today of travel companies doing this.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,692
    focuszing723 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Some of today's news:
    - shipment of gowns arrives from Turkey
    - ventilator challenge is producing ventilators
    - test capapcity now at 39,000, but more subjects are required

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/21/we-made-right-choice-in-ventilator-race-says-uk-consortium-head

    Interestingly the DM is full of doom gloom and despondency
    - the plane was too small
    - Nightingale is turning patients away due to no nurses

    On the plus side, some people I had never heard of have been wearing bikinis during lockdown
    That Nightingale one sounds like BS to me. It's not like they are places where a patient will just turn up, they get moved there when deemed necessary. The plane one sounds like they've hired Rick to write for them, I thought I'd seen pictures of a C130 waiting on the runway and they aren't exactly small.
    A400M apparently and they only carry 37 tonnes
    There must be more to the story. I simply can't believe there was 80 tons of PPE and they sent over just one 37 tonne capacity plane.
    The overall order is 80t, the bit that got delayed is just a part of that order as far as I'm aware.
  • Jeremy.89
    Jeremy.89 Posts: 457
    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Some of today's news:
    - shipment of gowns arrives from Turkey
    - ventilator challenge is producing ventilators
    - test capapcity now at 39,000, but more subjects are required

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/21/we-made-right-choice-in-ventilator-race-says-uk-consortium-head

    Interestingly the DM is full of doom gloom and despondency
    - the plane was too small
    - Nightingale is turning patients away due to no nurses

    On the plus side, some people I had never heard of have been wearing bikinis during lockdown
    That Nightingale one sounds like BS to me. It's not like they are places where a patient will just turn up, they get moved there when deemed necessary. The plane one sounds like they've hired Rick to write for them, I thought I'd seen pictures of a C130 waiting on the runway and they aren't exactly small.
    A400M apparently and they only carry 37 tonnes
    So nearly double the payload capacity of a C130 and a bit more than a Boeing 737. I'm not sure if your 'only' 37t was sarcasm as that's a pretty big payload albeit a few tonnes less than a Globemaster.
    Given the number of long haul passenger jets sitting unused, surely there could be something better...(although loading cargo into a plane full of seats isn't efficient)

    Heck, if moneys no object just charter a 747 F.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,510
    Jeremy.89 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    And deaths among young people have actually fallen, which implies that there are other causes of death that have reduced because of lockdown.

    No one driving, or doing anything more interesting tbf.
    There is an interesting stat about far more people died post 9/11 on the roads than died in the Towers.
    It is interesting but is it true? And what does it mean? More people died on the roads that day fleeing the towers, more people died in the US on the roads that year etc. etc.
    Possibly this is the stat referred to


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-road-deaths

    Basically the change in behaviour (driving instead of flying) was nearly as deadly as the original attack.

    If fewer younger people are dying, it would suggest that for the time being we are swapping dangerous behaviours for safer ones. Telecommuting for car commuting, netflix instead of getting smashed in clubs, zwift instead of road racing...

    (Obviously the death rates of road racing isn't going to register on annual statistics!)

    It is a really good example of a deeply misleading "statistic" then. Not only is it not true (50% being not "nearly" or "far more" - at least the last time I tried paying for anything), but the truth is hugely less shocking or surprising than the headline.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,929
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true


    Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?
    It's free to read to check it out for yourself.
    I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.
    if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.
    I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,692
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true


    Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?
    Prof Spiegelhalter said that coronavirus was not given as the cause on many of the death certificates but was likely to be a direct or indirect factor. He said many doctors would initially have been reluctant to designate the virus as the cause on death certificates as it was a new disease and they could not have been certain.

    Some of those who died from other causes may have been too scared to attend hospital or did not want to be a burden on the health service so they could be seen as possible indirect victims of the virus, he argued. But he added, the sheer number of deaths caused by the virus meant, “there is no suggestion that the collateral damage — however large it is — is anything like as big as the harm from Covid”.
    People on here have been saying that bit in bold for weeks.

    He's also guessing at what doctors may or may not have done in the early stages which doesn't seem very scientific.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,302
    rjsterry said:

    Who's getting indignant? They've been pretty clear what they've done. We have ONS figures for deaths registered in w/c 10th April. Deaths take about 4 days to register so those figures are out of date. Using the trend from the hospital figures to 'see forward by ~4 days, they have estimated what the number of deaths occurring in w/c 10th April, and then extended this forward to 22nd April and then added them all up to give an estimate for total deaths so far.

    Figures out for week ending 10th April so far, not week commencing.

    I think where it might fail somewhat is in this statement "And if you assume a stable pattern in location of deaths, the numbers for those outside hospitals now suggests over 10,000 people have died in care homes more than would have been expected for this time of the year so far"

    I don't think you can assume that stable pattern in location of deaths, and he claims to be being conservative, but the number must be over 30,000
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Some of today's news:
    - shipment of gowns arrives from Turkey
    - ventilator challenge is producing ventilators
    - test capapcity now at 39,000, but more subjects are required

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/21/we-made-right-choice-in-ventilator-race-says-uk-consortium-head

    Interestingly the DM is full of doom gloom and despondency
    - the plane was too small
    - Nightingale is turning patients away due to no nurses

    On the plus side, some people I had never heard of have been wearing bikinis during lockdown
    That Nightingale one sounds like BS to me. It's not like they are places where a patient will just turn up, they get moved there when deemed necessary. The plane one sounds like they've hired Rick to write for them, I thought I'd seen pictures of a C130 waiting on the runway and they aren't exactly small.
    A400M apparently and they only carry 37 tonnes
    So nearly double the payload capacity of a C130 and a bit more than a Boeing 737. I'm not sure if your 'only' 37t was sarcasm as that's a pretty big payload albeit a few tonnes less than a Globemaster.
    I think there is a security issue, hence the military aircraft.

    Yanks have already nicked PPE shipments bound for Germany and other nations.
    _
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,692
    Jeremy.89 said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Some of today's news:
    - shipment of gowns arrives from Turkey
    - ventilator challenge is producing ventilators
    - test capapcity now at 39,000, but more subjects are required

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/21/we-made-right-choice-in-ventilator-race-says-uk-consortium-head

    Interestingly the DM is full of doom gloom and despondency
    - the plane was too small
    - Nightingale is turning patients away due to no nurses

    On the plus side, some people I had never heard of have been wearing bikinis during lockdown
    That Nightingale one sounds like BS to me. It's not like they are places where a patient will just turn up, they get moved there when deemed necessary. The plane one sounds like they've hired Rick to write for them, I thought I'd seen pictures of a C130 waiting on the runway and they aren't exactly small.
    A400M apparently and they only carry 37 tonnes
    So nearly double the payload capacity of a C130 and a bit more than a Boeing 737. I'm not sure if your 'only' 37t was sarcasm as that's a pretty big payload albeit a few tonnes less than a Globemaster.
    Given the number of long haul passenger jets sitting unused, surely there could be something better...(although loading cargo into a plane full of seats isn't efficient)

    Heck, if moneys no object just charter a 747 F.
    Presumably it wasn't needed and the RAF transport plane was sufficient. It seems that someone at the Mail has gone 'the order was for 80t and that plane can't carry 80t therefore it's too small' whereas 80t is the whole order and the plane was only due to pick up part of the consignment. The RAF have a pretty high degree of expertise in matching equipment to logistical need so my money is on the Mail making a story out of nothing, it's not like they are renowned for accurate and responsible reporting.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,745
    Stevo_666 said:

    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:



    It's not. Vaccines are usually deactivated versions of the virus or fragments of the virus that trigger the immune response without giving you the disease.

    Exactly how deactivated it is is what they re testing though ;)

    Not testing for whether it produces an immune response then? :)
    Too deactivated - No immune response - no use

    Not deactivated enough - get the disease - questionable use
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,510
    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true


    Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?
    It's free to read to check it out for yourself.
    I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.
    if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.
    I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    So, this assumes not only has the "all cause" increase been consistent over this period, but all of those deaths are Coronavirus related (which we know not to be the case) and that the proportional increase will remain the same during their predictions (which can't be the case as a proportion because there should be a generally fixed base number to subtract). In addition, the FT on the one hand talks about perturbations in the data due to the long weekend (i.e. the long term average for that one particular week doesn't reflect there being an 4-day weekend very often) yet doesn't take this into account in their projections.

    Just bear in mind that if you round 26 to the nearest 10, round that to the nearest 50 and then round that to the nearest 100, your number 26 can be estimated to be 100. I've seen scientists do this sort of thing in Excel, so lets not be so sure the FT is bang on shall we?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,929
    rjsterry said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    So Rick has now moved on to defending the integrity of the FT.

    That should make an interesting hill for him to die on :smiley:

    So what's your source of choice? Genuinely intrigued.
    Go on @coopster_the_1st, don't be a tease. :)
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,692
    kingstonian said:

    Just had an email from the company we booked our now cancelled ski trip with. The airline (Air Canada) are not providing a refund, but instead going down the route of holding a credit in our name which we can use for a future booking with them. If we chose to not use that credit, we'd have to try to claim for the lost amount through travel insurance.

    I just saw on the BBS website that other airlines are taking the same approach.

    I realise that we are living in unprecedented times, but it feels odd that you can book a flight with a company to travel to a specific destination at a specific time, and they can cancel it with no opportunity to travel on that same route for many months and then not be obliged to refund the booking. As it happens we are looking to re-book our holiday for next year, but many won't and will then be arm-wrestling with their travel insurance policy.......

    They are legally obliged to offer you the choice of a refund or being rerouted under the EU denied boarding regulations from what I heard this morning (might not cover the return flight though as it was leaving from outside the EU).
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,510
    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:



    It's not. Vaccines are usually deactivated versions of the virus or fragments of the virus that trigger the immune response without giving you the disease.

    Exactly how deactivated it is is what they re testing though ;)

    Not testing for whether it produces an immune response then? :)
    Too deactivated - No immune response - no use

    Not deactivated enough - get the disease - questionable use
    By deactivated they mean that they have taken the RNA (of DNA) out of the middle of the capsid and eliminated the ability of the virus to replicate. So it is literally not possible to get the virus from the vaccine - no matter what David Icke or your local homeopathist might try to tell you.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,692
    rick_chasey said:

    Update on testing, just over a week out from the deadline the 100,000 tests a day target.

    Yesterday: 18,000

    People aren't turning up so even though the current capacity is well short of the 100,000 target / aim whatever it was eventually described as we aren't even getting enough people showing up to reach the current capacity. There was talk a week or two back that the people being offered a test are too ill to travel to a testing station. I'm not sure how that gets resolved as you won't get many tests done if people have to travel around the community. It does suggest that they could possibly let people attend the testing centres using wider criteria of who is eligible though.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,090
    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true


    Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?
    It's free to read to check it out for yourself.
    I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.
    if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.
    I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    Thanks for the precis. I presume they are using the date of hospital death, and not the date of notification of hospital death as report daily.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,692
    First.Aspect said:

    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:



    It's not. Vaccines are usually deactivated versions of the virus or fragments of the virus that trigger the immune response without giving you the disease.

    Exactly how deactivated it is is what they re testing though ;)

    Not testing for whether it produces an immune response then? :)
    Too deactivated - No immune response - no use

    Not deactivated enough - get the disease - questionable use
    By deactivated they mean that they have taken the RNA (of DNA) out of the middle of the capsid and eliminated the ability of the virus to replicate. So it is literally not possible to get the virus from the vaccine - no matter what David Icke or your local homeopathist might try to tell you.
    So is the extracted bit what they then pump into the 5G masts to infect us all? ;)
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,510
    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:



    It's not. Vaccines are usually deactivated versions of the virus or fragments of the virus that trigger the immune response without giving you the disease.

    Exactly how deactivated it is is what they re testing though ;)

    Not testing for whether it produces an immune response then? :)
    Too deactivated - No immune response - no use

    Not deactivated enough - get the disease - questionable use
    By deactivated they mean that they have taken the RNA (of DNA) out of the middle of the capsid and eliminated the ability of the virus to replicate. So it is literally not possible to get the virus from the vaccine - no matter what David Icke or your local homeopathist might try to tell you.
    So is the extracted bit what they then pump into the 5G masts to infect us all? ;)
    I dare to to email that to the Daily Mail.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    So Rick has now moved on to defending the integrity of the FT.

    That should make an interesting hill for him to die on :smiley:

    So what's your source of choice? Genuinely intrigued.
    Go on @coopster_the_1st, don't be a tease. :)
    I'll answer when I have time to give a complete answer.

    However this is today's FT headline. What is the point of this?
    UK medical teams have known for at least a couple of weeks that ventilators are not as important in the treatment of C19 as previously thought.


  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,302
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Rather grim reading from the FT on likely real numbers so far extrapolated from the ONS figures for the beginning of April.

    https://amp.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?__twitter_impression=true


    Is that a whole article on simply using the excess deaths to be corona deaths?
    It's free to read to check it out for yourself.
    I skim read it but I find the FT a bit sensationalist these days to bother reading it properly. That doesn't mean other newspapers are more reliable.
    if you don't wanna know that's fine, just don't ask.
    I wanted to know if there was anything more to the article which is why I asked. If there was, and there was some nuance and reliable statistical analysis then I was going to read it properly. If it is just a rewrite of the ONS data then it is less interesting.
    It's not. I've posted a summary.
    You need to be more critical. I just skimmed it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the FT have taken the increased "all causes" mortality for one week, attributed 100% of this to coronavirus and extrapolated over the course of the pandemic.

    So, this assumes not only has the "all cause" increase been consistent over this period, but all of those deaths are Coronavirus related (which we know not to be the case) and that the proportional increase will remain the same during their predictions (which can't be the case as a proportion because there should be a generally fixed base number to subtract). In addition, the FT on the one hand talks about perturbations in the data due to the long weekend (i.e. the long term average for that one particular week doesn't reflect there being an 4-day weekend very often) yet doesn't take this into account in their projections.

    Just bear in mind that if you round 26 to the nearest 10, round that to the nearest 50 and then round that to the nearest 100, your number 26 can be estimated to be 100. I've seen scientists do this sort of thing in Excel, so lets not be so sure the FT is bang on shall we?
    You are wrong, they've taken the proportion of deaths outside hospitals, and extrapolated that to the last two weeks, not the expected duration of the pandemic. And it still comes to over 40,000.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,477
    coopster_the_1st said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    So Rick has now moved on to defending the integrity of the FT.

    That should make an interesting hill for him to die on :smiley:

    So what's your source of choice? Genuinely intrigued.
    Go on @coopster_the_1st, don't be a tease. :)
    I'll answer when I have time to give a complete answer.

    However this is today's FT headline. What is the point of this?
    UK medical teams have known for at least a couple of weeks that ventilators are not as important in the treatment of C19 as previously thought.


    They didn't know that when the decision was made.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,196
    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Some of today's news:
    - shipment of gowns arrives from Turkey
    - ventilator challenge is producing ventilators
    - test capapcity now at 39,000, but more subjects are required

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/21/we-made-right-choice-in-ventilator-race-says-uk-consortium-head

    Interestingly the DM is full of doom gloom and despondency
    - the plane was too small
    - Nightingale is turning patients away due to no nurses

    On the plus side, some people I had never heard of have been wearing bikinis during lockdown
    That Nightingale one sounds like BS to me. It's not like they are places where a patient will just turn up, they get moved there when deemed necessary. The plane one sounds like they've hired Rick to write for them, I thought I'd seen pictures of a C130 waiting on the runway and they aren't exactly small.
    A400M apparently and they only carry 37 tonnes
    So nearly double the payload capacity of a C130 and a bit more than a Boeing 737. I'm not sure if your 'only' 37t was sarcasm as that's a pretty big payload albeit a few tonnes less than a Globemaster.
    I think there is a security issue, hence the military aircraft.

    Yanks have already nicked PPE shipments bound for Germany and other nations.
    That was bad form, but then again Germany started it?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 62,022
    First.Aspect said:

    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    ddraver said:

    Stevo_666 said:



    It's not. Vaccines are usually deactivated versions of the virus or fragments of the virus that trigger the immune response without giving you the disease.

    Exactly how deactivated it is is what they re testing though ;)

    Not testing for whether it produces an immune response then? :)
    Too deactivated - No immune response - no use

    Not deactivated enough - get the disease - questionable use
    By deactivated they mean that they have taken the RNA (of DNA) out of the middle of the capsid and eliminated the ability of the virus to replicate. So it is literally not possible to get the virus from the vaccine - no matter what David Icke or your local homeopathist might try to tell you.
    Thanks for clarifying FA. Beat me to it. :smile:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    tailwindhome said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    So Rick has now moved on to defending the integrity of the FT.

    That should make an interesting hill for him to die on :smiley:

    So what's your source of choice? Genuinely intrigued.
    Go on @coopster_the_1st, don't be a tease. :)
    I'll answer when I have time to give a complete answer.

    However this is today's FT headline. What is the point of this?
    UK medical teams have known for at least a couple of weeks that ventilators are not as important in the treatment of C19 as previously thought.


    They didn't know that when the decision was made.
    The 'political decision' point was wrong as well and known to be incorrect before going to print.

    You've not answered the question though, what was the point of the headline article?

    With hindsight it was a great decision and the UK is now manufacturing the ventilators required

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,692
    Probably one for the irony thread but Raab, answering criticism on testing at PMQs, decided in turn to criticise the Welsh Government for cancelling their 5,000 a day testing target. I appears that it's better to set a target that you aren't going to meet.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,090
    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    So Rick has now moved on to defending the integrity of the FT.

    That should make an interesting hill for him to die on :smiley:

    So what's your source of choice? Genuinely intrigued.
    Go on @coopster_the_1st, don't be a tease. :)
    Not a question for me, but it's a struggle to find credible sources. Brexit was perhaps the worst example of such terrible coverage.

    I'm not sure whether standards of journalism are worse today, or that it is so much easier, with the internet, to establish that the journalist is wrong about something. I live in hope of finding a decent publication that will do analysis without prejudice.

    coopster_the_1st has a point about that FT headline.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 62,022
    Another vaccine goes to the human trial stage:
    https://independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-vaccine-first-human-trials-germany-approved-begin-a9477691.html

    Cheer up everyone, this vaccine trial is in Germany so it's bound to be successful ;)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,629
    Especially when the EU scheme seems to have been a total failure so far.

Categories