Generic Virus Thread

[sidcow]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Lefty scum?

They've probably had it coming for years. 

[Lichfield Dean]

https://www.channel4.com/news/uk-medicines-regulator-considers-issuing-new-advice-over-oxford-astrazeneca-jab

UK medicines regulator considers issuing new advice over Oxford-AstraZeneca jab

Quote

The UK’s mass vaccination roll-out is one of the fastest and most successful in the world.

It relies heavily on supplies of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, after the government ordered 100 million doses.

And so far, the UK has not joined a number of other countries which have stopped the jab for younger people – amid concerns about whether it could increase the risk of a rare blood clot, especially in younger women.

This programme has now learned that the UK’s medicines regulator is being urged to change tack – possibly this week.

Hmmm... Let's hope that if this does come into play that the government have enough supplies of other vaccines.

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

C’mon, you must have read that back and realised it makes no sense?

I could meet more relatives at a wedding than at the last gig I went to. Or, let’s put it another way, the last gig I went to was in a shop. So the i.d. Rules would suggest I could now hang around in that shop for half a day, then, just before the music starts, I’d have to prove I didn’t have covid as music would make exactly the same people in exactly the same place suddenly dangerous? But then becomes less dangerous if all the people are related by marriage?

It’s bullshit.

 

Sure, there's always going to be areas in any set of rules that have to cut across the entire of society that make no sense, but that doesn't make the fundamental premise of the rules invalid. 99.9% of shops don't seamlessly transition into music venues halfway through the day so I don't think the example you raise is particularly devastating.

Also, I don't think it'd be particularly strange for the government to bring in vaccine passports for you going to a gig but not for you to visit your grandparents (even though you are correct that being related to your grandparents does not protect them from covid). The same with weddings; maybe all weddings at commercial venues would have to enforce the rules but if you get married in your own back garden you wouldn't have to. The government regulating the public sphere but not the private sphere wouldn't be unusual, and I'm sure relatively sensible rules can be made.

I hope you're all right and we don't need them because the vaccinations race ahead and there's nobody left to get infected, but with the number of second doses required over the next 2-3 months I'm still not convinced we'll have everyone done that quickly. In which case it seems to me that the options are either to just a) cancel all the big events, b) allow them to go ahead but attendees need to either get a free covid test or have had the vaccine, or c) allow possible covid super-spreader events to happen. Having a covid test before I go to one of those events doesn't seem that much of a hardship to potentially save lives.

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Show me the science where 2,000 people sat on a beach 2 metres apart or queueing for chips are safe but 300 people in a 2,500 seat outdoor stadium 2 metres apart watching football are at risk.

Show me the science that says a record shop is only dangerous if there is live music playing and you’re not married.

I’m not claiming greater expertise, I’m saying educate me, show me the science.

 

EDIT - actually, I missed the point here. Ignore this post.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Panto_Villan

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Having a covid test before I go to one of those events doesn't seem that much of a hardship to potentially save lives

There are other ways of doing this other that a Vaccine passport. See Barcelona’s experiment only the other day for one example

 

4 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

surely the concept is that knowing everyone in a venue is covid-free allows a return to normality?

This is impossible, even the vaccine passport will not do that. The Barcelona model actually stands a bigger chance of that

[Mic09]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

It’s funny how the right wing governments and their supporters like to talk of being the party of freedom and accuse the left of being ‘Marxists’ who hate freedom but it’s the same right wing governments who bring in bans on protests and a requirement to show your papers when going to the pub etc. Orwellian doublespeak. 

Maybe, just maybe, the Tories are not the right wing devils many accuse them to be but a boring, middle of the road, populist centrist European party that will drive the economy to eventually collapse.

Once you take that into account, it all makes more sense. 

[tinker]

Its a policy based on economics  and then health. .......Anything work related is lawful, the same activity  for leisure  is unlawful.  It's that simple and it's not hard to see.

Visiting a 2nd home abroad legal, Package holiday in Spain illegal. 

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

 

I hope you're all right and we don't need them because the vaccinations race ahead and there's nobody left to get infected, but with the number of second doses required over the next 2-3 months I'm still not convinced we'll have everyone done that quickly. In which case it seems to me that the options are either to just a) cancel all the big events, b) allow them to go ahead but attendees need to either get a free covid test or have had the vaccine, or c) allow possible covid super-spreader events to happen. Having a covid test before I go to one of those events doesn't seem that much of a hardship to potentially save lives.

I haven’t said this. I’ve questioned why we would only need them in some places but not others. I’m here to be put right, I’m here to be shown this is science not politics.

1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said:

Isn't the point that with a vaccine passport you can have 2,500 people in a 2,500 seat stadium again, though? Because if not then I fully agree they are nonsense - but surely the concept is that knowing everyone in a venue is covid-free allows a return to normality?

We don’t get 2,500 though. We get 300 and we aren’t allowed to open. Why do we have to wait whilst an i.d. scheme that our volunteers may not be able to administer is set up for large, full, professional venues, when that’s not what we are? It’s an outdoor space, walking distance down the road there are thousands congregating at the beach. If I take a football to the beach, will they all be at greater risk of covid? We’ve been denied a full season of 300 people paying a fiver whilst they work out a pseudo scientific system for a problem we will never have. 

Why do I need an assurance that Terry, 150 metres away in the block J of the West Stand is covid free, when I don’t need that assurance when we queue 2 metres apart in a bookies, or we sit either end of a picnic blanket in the park?

Again, I’m not arguing one is correct or incorrect. I’m querying how the difference can possibly be claimed to be based on science.

I think I’ve made this same point a few times now, so I’ll give everyone a rest.

 

 

 

[Ingram85]

29 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Maybe, just maybe, the Tories are not the right wing devils many accuse them to be but a boring, middle of the road, populist centrist European party that will drive the economy to eventually collapse.

Once you take that into account, it all makes more sense. 

watermelon smiles, piccaninnies, letterboxes, bumboys, go home vans, hostile environment, windrush scandal, windrush treatment compared to rich foreign oligarchs, Rudd’s % of a firms foreign workers declaration policy, Viktor Orban, Nadine Dorries being massively racist, Anti Semitism, “too many pakis in town”,  Bob “Chink” Fahey, David Whittingham, Asian benefits seekers = dogs, Anne Marie Morris “n word in the woodpile”, Boris Johnson in general.

That’s just a small snapshot from the last decade.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Ingram85

[Mic09]

23 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

watermelon smiles, piccaninnies, letterboxes, bumboys, go home vans, hostile environment, windrush scandal, windrush treatment compared to rich foreign oligarchs, Rudd’s % of a firms foreign workers declaration policy, Viktor Orban, Nadine Dorries being massively racist, Anti Semitism, “too many pakis in town”,  Bob “Chink” Fahey, David Whittingham, Asian benefits seekers = dogs, Anne Marie Morris “n word in the woodpile”, Boris Johnson in general.

That’s just a small snapshot from the last decade.

I couldn't agree with you more. 

But I give them much less credit in being an ideological party than you seem to. 

Boris is not the new general Pinochet; I see him as a slightly old fashioned, Oxford elitist populist who simply wants to win the next election.

Hence, his treatment of the pandemic seems to run broadly along similar lines to that of his European colleagues. Lockdowns, controls, bans on ridiculous things, now vaccine passports. For better or worse, he has taken a big dump on individual rights and liberties and no one seems to care much.

He has no comprehension of terms like "libertarianism" or "freedom", regardless of what his party PR might be pushing or what some his opponents seem to attribute to him. 

[blandy]

4 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

I'm not the person to answer those questions, but in my view they're certainly not impossible to answer (which seems to be your implication).

Because I'm not someone who just screams "but my civil liberties!" whenever anything affecting my data happens, I'll have to look at the details when they emerge.

If the government decides that all gathering of more than 2 people requires a vaccine passport for the next 100 years, I'd say that was a needless infringement of civil liberties. If they say gatherings of above 25 people (not personal things like weddings) required a passport for the next 6-12 months, I'd say that was fair enough.

My point is that dismissing the idea out of hand because of civil liberties at this stage is silly. Of course it'll be an abuse of civil liberties in its worst incarnation, but there's other incarnations where it would be fine.

Perhaps I’ve not asked the right question?

you say “I'll have to look at the details when they emerge” - that’s my question. You haven’t yet thought about the details. Fair enough. When you do, maybe you’ll ask questions like I asked. Maybe you’ll ask better ones. That’s fine too.  You say “they're certainly not impossible to answer (which seems to be your implication).”. It’s not really my implication, it’s just that I can’t see a simple answer. So if you haven’t yet thought about it, which is fine, but I have and can’t see practicable answers, and the government haven’t led me down a road to seeing it’s all good, then I was just asking why you held the view you espoused. My experience is that it’s unlikely authority will get it right. I’m of a mind to want to ask why other people think, or support the notion they will get it right, or if they have doubts too.

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, sidcow said:

Fine, like I said ask questions, but ask Chris Whitty why that is his advice.  I'm sure he will give a comprehensive answer. It will be him and his team who have made the recommendation and I'm sure it's based on scientific reasons. 

Back at the start of this pandemic, Britain's top public health officials ignored evidence that covid had a much higher r0 than the flu, didn't react to news coming out of China and waited until Italy was in the grip of crisis before panicking, believed that the public would tolerate no more than 2 months' worth of restrictions based on social psychology hypotheses, decided that we should pursue a policy of 'herd immunity' for about three catastrophic weeks before backtracking in a panic, and were at least involved in a decision to send covid-positive patients back to nursing homes.

It's true that the public health professionals we have are the ones we've got, and and it is of course worth considering what they say seriously, but they are not infallible god-beings. They are just as vulnerable to ideology, groupthink, herding, career incentives and public blowback as any other profession. Possibly even more so, given that this is public health's first time in the spotlight, as a discipline, since the foot-and-mouth outbreak, and this is on a different scale. They get some things right and some things wrong, and people can and should question things they think are wrong or misguided.

And I can't ask Chris Whitty about his advice, because he's not on here and I'm not friends with him. So we're going to have to carry on shouting into the void, just as we all do every day.

[sidcow]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Back at the start of this pandemic, Britain's top public health officials ignored evidence that covid had a much higher r0 than the flu, didn't react to news coming out of China and waited until Italy was in the grip of crisis before panicking, believed that the public would tolerate no more than 2 months' worth of restrictions based on social psychology hypotheses, decided that we should pursue a policy of 'herd immunity' for about three catastrophic weeks before backtracking in a panic, and were at least involved in a decision to send covid-positive patients back to nursing homes.

It's true that the public health professionals we have are the ones we've got, and and it is of course worth considering what they say seriously, but they are not infallible god-beings. They are just as vulnerable to ideology, groupthink, herding, career incentives and public blowback as any other profession. Possibly even more so, given that this is public health's first time in the spotlight, as a discipline, since the foot-and-mouth outbreak, and this is on a different scale. They get some things right and some things wrong, and people can and should question things they think are wrong or misguided.

And I can't ask Chris Whitty about his advice, because he's not on here and I'm not friends with him. So we're going to have to carry on shouting into the void, just as we all do every day.

OK, I give in.  There is no reason why going to a pop concert is more dangerous than going to Lidl. 

If you want to ask them why they are doing this madness you can apply here. 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ask-the-government-a-question

[bickster]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

a pop concert

This is a downfall of the debate, you have this set idea of what a "gig" is. The absolute vast majority of gigs in this country take place in smaller venues, the back rooms of pubs, maybe even small purpose built venues. There will be more people in a supermarket in the middle of the afternoon, often there will be more people in the pub itself at the weekend.

[sidcow]

Just now, bickster said:

This is a downfall of the debate, you have this set idea of what a "gig" is. The absolute vast majority of gigs in this country take place in smaller venues, the back rooms of pubs, maybe even small purpose built venues. There will be more people in a supermarket in the middle of the afternoon, often there will be more people in the pub itself at the weekend.

I've been to The Flapper many times thanks for the lecture. 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I've been to The Flapper many times thanks for the lecture. 

capacity 180, so back to supermarkets

[sidcow]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

This is a downfall of the debate, you have this set idea of what a "gig" is. The absolute vast majority of gigs in this country take place in smaller venues, the back rooms of pubs, maybe even small purpose built venues. There will be more people in a supermarket in the middle of the afternoon, often there will be more people in the pub itself at the weekend.

Oh, and my experience of venues like The Flapper is that they would be a significantly higher chance of close contact with people than in Lidl. 

What am I saying.  Sorry, I agree, it's just stupid, there is no higher risk. They're idiot's for suggesting it. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by sidcow

[Panto_Villan]

8 hours ago, blandy said:

Perhaps I’ve not asked the right question?

you say “I'll have to look at the details when they emerge” - that’s my question. You haven’t yet thought about the details. Fair enough. When you do, maybe you’ll ask questions like I asked. Maybe you’ll ask better ones. That’s fine too.  You say “they're certainly not impossible to answer (which seems to be your implication).”. It’s not really my implication, it’s just that I can’t see a simple answer. So if you haven’t yet thought about it, which is fine, but I have and can’t see practicable answers, and the government haven’t led me down a road to seeing it’s all good, then I was just asking why you held the view you espoused. My experience is that it’s unlikely authority will get it right. I’m of a mind to want to ask why other people think, or support the notion they will get it right, or if they have doubts too.

Yeah, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. It was difficult to pick up on all the nuance when discussing things with multiple different people at the same time, but I don't think our views are necessarily in conflict with one another.

[blandy]

11 hours ago, sidcow said:

I would be all over it like a fat kid on cake.

Cake is a bisturbile cranobolic amphetemoid, which is a made up psychoactive chemical.

[sidcow]

What is a bigger question is what's the difference between these events and pubs opening on 17th May.  There are going to be lots of drunk people packed in shoulder to shoulder then. I don't see that's any better than concerts (gigs) etc yet that's not included. 

That makes no sense to me. 

Is a crowded room inside The Sun on The Hill any different to a crowded room in a nightclub? 

Edited April 6, 2021 by sidcow