*CRT enforcement of 14-day rule post lockdown and Tier 3 areas*

[Guest]

Just been messaged by both my daughters and son in law all of whom work in the NHS.

 

They have been told to expect being called for covid vaccination imminently.

 

They are all having it as soon as they can.

[Rambling Boater]

14 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

But all cells are chock full of RNA, so it can't be argued that RNA per se is bad. You could argue that certain RNA sequences are bad, but in that case getting infected with COVID is going to dump vast quantities of RNA containing the exact same sequence as the vaccine RNA into you, so the judgement becomes a balance of risk.

 

I'm not saying that vaccines never cause problems, and I'm not saying  that this one is self-evidently safe, no drug is ever self evidently safe, they have to be tested. I'm just saying that it's not sensible to get spooked by the fact that if contains RNA. So do all live vaccines against RNA viruses, so does your lunch.

 

MP.

Do you think one year is enough to prove it is safe long term? Actually the human testing phase is much less than a year. 

 

I genuinely hope this vaccine will prove to be effective and safe. I'm guessing most people who will queue for it are far more worried about dying early from the virus than any side effects. Not surprising really with the amount of fear we have been bombarded with this year. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Rambling Boater

[Arthur Marshall]

8 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Do you think one year is enough to prove it is safe long term? Actually the human testing phase is much less than a year. 

 

I genuinely hope this vaccine will prove to be effective and safe. I'm guessing most people who will queue for it are far more worried about dying early from the virus than any side effects. Not surprising really with the amount of fear we have been bombarded with this year. 

It's not just the dying early oneself that matters, it's the unignorable fact that by catching it, and not knowing, you spread it to the next old fart like me that you meet. You're fine, I die.

Your choice.

All the rest is risk assessment. If you think that AZ, Pfizzer and the rest if them will risk their businesses because of the threat of being sued out of existence if there are dreadful side effects of what they produce, you're barmy. They are in this to make money, and they won't do that if it isn't safe and doesn't work. Bank on cynicism, it works.

And going back about 3 pages, do I think the opposition would have done better? Yes, because it's led by a lawyer with vast experience in looking at evidence, not by a pack of journalists.  If Corbyn was still in charge, probably not, but he isn't. And, actually,  my old mum could have done better than this lot!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

And going back about 3 pages, do I think the opposition would have done better? Yes, because it's led by a lawyer with vast experience in looking at evidence, not by a pack of journalists.  If Corbyn was still in charge, probably not, but he isn't. And, actually,  my old mum could have done better than this lot!

The opposition would still have had to lock us down, they would have had to wait just as long for a vaccine, they might (?would) have made a better job of track and trace but don't forget the infrastructure support available to them to implement it would be much the same and probably susceptible to the same potential failures under them as it was under the Tories.

 

There is clearly stuff that could have been done better but some seem to forget this was an unprecedented event in living memory. All will hopefully be revealed at any future enquiry of course.

 

Lawyer or not I bet Starmer would have struggled too, for now he can just criticise from the sidelines along with some of his party who don't really have to worry about anything other than seeking out things to criticise without having to do anything substantial to contribute to defeating the pandemic.

 

Little wonder Boris calls him 'Captain Hindsight'.

[alias]

15 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Do you think one year is enough to prove it is safe long term? Actually the human testing phase is much less than a year. 

 

I genuinely hope this vaccine will prove to be effective and safe. I'm guessing most people who will queue for it are far more worried about dying early from the virus than any side effects. Not surprising really with the amount of fear we have been bombarded with this year. 

If the concern is about mRNA vaccines in general (that is, the delivery mechanism) then it may help to know that there have been clinical trials involving injection using this technology to treat cancer/disease underway since 2009 without major safety concerns being exposed.

 

As others have said, the mRNA specific to this vaccine will be washing around the cells of anyone infected with Covid.

 

I wouldn't stress about it though as it may be a while before you have to make this choice.  It will take many months to roll vaccine out to all of the high risk groups, let alone everyone that wants it. By the time that has happened there will be lots more data on safety available, and other more traditional approaches to vaccine development may have borne fruit. 

[matty40s]

You mean Boris Blindfold...

 

Hypothetical nonsense.

 

[Mike Todd]

17 hours ago, sirweste said:

 

Pardon..? You're calling people who understand and agree with vaccination (most of the population) clowns, because they "inject poison"...because they can't be arsed to maintain a healthy immune system...to fight such things as polio I guess?

 

Have I completely miss-understood what you said?

I dunno if you said this in jest or not, how would you then account for hereditary risks? What about the working class who do manual labour? You're effectively wanting to de-solcialise the NHS. Unless you said it in jest.

As I read it, you well and truly have misread the post: as I see, the post was ridiculing the anti vax myths.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, alias said:

If the concern is about mRNA vaccines in general (that is, the delivery mechanism) then it may help to know that there have been clinical trials involving injection using this technology to treat cancer/disease underway since 2009 without major safety concerns being exposed.

 

As others have said, the mRNA specific to this vaccine will be washing around the cells of anyone infected with Covid.

 

I wouldn't stress about it though as it may be a while before you have to make this choice.  It will take many months to roll vaccine out to all of the high risk groups, let alone everyone that wants it. By the time that has happened there will be lots more data on safety available, and other more traditional approaches to vaccine development may have borne fruit. 

A very good point.

 

I think at the last count there was something like 200 under development.

[Rambling Boater]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's not just the dying early oneself that matters, it's the unignorable fact that by catching it, and not knowing, you spread it to the next old fart like me that you meet. You're fine, I die.

Your choice.

There is no long term evidence that you can't still spread Covid-19 with naturally or artificially induced immunity. Google 'virus shedding'. You can also still pass it on by poor hygene.
 

On the subject of immunity, wouldn't it be better to see if we have immunity before taking a jab? I believe there is a new anti-gen test (Covid-Seroklir)  which has been developed mainly to prove the level of immunity after taking the vaccine. Then again, we don't know how long immunity will last yet even with the jab. 

 

It's OUR choice actually, but I doubt our lifestyle will put many at risk as we're retired liveaboards in our 60s who don't go out partying every night.

 

[MoominPapa]

59 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Do you think one year is enough to prove it is safe long term? Actually the human testing phase is much less than a year. 

Well, it's clearly not long enough to reveal effects that take more than a year to manifest themselves, and such effects could happen. Nothing is completely safe. What should we do? Keep killing people with a known deadly virus? Inject volunteers and sit back ignoring that chaos whilst we wait (how long, a decade? Two?) to see what happens to  them. At some point it's a balance of risk. I shall take the vaccine, and be eternally grateful that I'm not the person with the awesome responsibility of declaring it safe.

 

If you decide not to, I hope you'll balance the risk, not to yourself, but against your social responsibility not to spread the virus to others. Not getting infected with the virus is by far the best way to do that, and once a vaccine is available being vaccinated is by far the best way not to get infected.

 

MP.

 

[sirweste]

36 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

It's OUR choice actually, but I doubt our lifestyle will put many at risk as we're retired liveaboards in our 60s who don't go out partying every night.

Saw an article yesterday (Sky I think) about places potentially requiring you to provide proof you're immune before granting entry. Something I'd support, it's your choice not to prove you're immune yep yep, but then as a society we should reject inclusion those who refuse.

While you may not go out much, I'd still not be chuffed to be in a supermarket / shop / restaurant / pictures / theater / pub 'with' you; just as I don't like being in those places with e.g. someone smoking. 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by sirweste

[Rickent]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's not just the dying early oneself that matters, it's the unignorable fact that by catching it, and not knowing, you spread it to the next old fart like me that you meet. You're fine, I die.

Your choice.

All the rest is risk assessment. If you think that AZ, Pfizzer and the rest if them will risk their businesses because of the threat of being sued out of existence if there are dreadful side effects of what they produce, you're barmy. They are in this to make money, and they won't do that if it isn't safe and doesn't work. Bank on cynicism, it works.

And going back about 3 pages, do I think the opposition would have done better? Yes, because it's led by a lawyer with vast experience in looking at evidence, not by a pack of journalists.  If Corbyn was still in charge, probably not, but he isn't. And, actually,  my old mum could have done better than this lot!

pfizer and the other companies that have produced these vaccines have an indemnity so they will not be liable if anyone has an adverse reaction.

Pfizer have over the years paid out over 2.3 billion in lawsuits to people who have been damaged by their products.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN26D0UG&ved=2ahUKEwjt8qbrrq_tAhXeQEEAHSL5A1kQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3YBOCgfBSCIFs0YpPzIPcW&ampcf=1

[MoominPapa]

40 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

It's OUR choice actually, but I doubt our lifestyle will put many at risk as we're retired liveaboards in our 60s who don't go out partying every night.

 

If you get the virus, your body turns into a virus factory, producing billions of the things. That's why the overriding responsibility for everyone is to remain uninfected if they can. Testing and isolation post facto are a poor second best.  Are you really saying that you're happy to fulfil your duty not become a vector by complete isolation for the rest of your lives? Seems a bit extreme, but anything else, when vaccines are available, is putting your fellow citizens at risk of death or relying on herd immunity gained by the rest of us taking the vaccine. Why should we take that risk for you, when you're not prepared to take it for us? 

[sirweste]

1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:

The opposition would still have had to lock us down, they would have had to wait just as long for a vaccine, they might (?would) have made a better job of track and trace but don't forget the infrastructure support available to them to implement it would be much the same and probably susceptible to the same potential failures under them as it was under the Tories.

 

There is clearly stuff that could have been done better but some seem to forget this was an unprecedented event in living memory. All will hopefully be revealed at any future enquiry of course.

 

Lawyer or not I bet Starmer would have struggled too, for now he can just criticise from the sidelines along with some of his party who don't really have to worry about anything other than seeking out things to criticise without having to do anything substantial to contribute to defeating the pandemic.

 

Little wonder Boris calls him 'Captain Hindsight'.

People often say 'what would have Labour done better'. That's utterly irrelevant and frustrating whataboutry.

Being critical of the complete mess we are in, the constant impression that it's all being made up on the spot is shared by many. The gov should be held to account for this. I don't care in the slightest what Starmer would have done, I care what has been done and how they will be held accountable, how we will reflect and improve and how we will put in plans and processes to prevent such a mess in the future; when the next pandemic roles through.

 

Personally I think the critical nature of Starmer probably would have been better than Johnson's insert nature here. But we'll never know and I don't really care what he might have done. I care about getting it right now, learning from mistakes made, which seemingly the gov haven't done at anypoint since Feb / Jan. The mistakes at the beginning were perhaps excusable, unprecedented times and all that. We've more than 6 months of precedent now.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Athy
To remove obscene language following a report.

[Dinmore Manor]

What a friendly thread this is.....! ? 

[Rambling Boater]

5 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Saw an article yesterday (Sky I think) about places potentially requiring you to provide proof you're immune before granting entry. Something I'd support, it's your choice not to prove you're immune yep yep, but then as a society we should reject inclusion those who refuse.

While you may not go out much, I'd still not be chuffed to be in a supermarket / shop / restaurant / pictures / theater / pub 'with' you; just as I don't like being in those places with e.g. someone smoking. 

 

 

 

Any 'immunity passport' concept should not be based on proof you have the jab. It should be based on prooving you have immunity and can't pass it on to others  i.e Proof via reliable antigen test results. As I said, the virus can still spread by shedding and poor hygene even when immunity is present. 

 

I think rather than using 'virtue signalling' and attempted guilt trips as a basis for an argument, perhaps it would be better if we stuck to the science and common sense at least.

[sirweste]

5 minutes ago, Rickent said:

pfizer and the other companies that have produced these vaccines have an indemnity so they will not be liable if anyone has an adverse reaction.

Pfizer have over the years paid out over 2.3 billion in lawsuits to people who have been damaged by their products.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN26D0UG&ved=2ahUKEwjt8qbrrq_tAhXeQEEAHSL5A1kQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3YBOCgfBSCIFs0YpPzIPcW&ampcf=1

So this is the first thing you've put in here that actually has validity. But you presented it as fact, which it is not.

 

From the article "A spokesman for the European Commission declined to comment specifically on Middleton's remarks, but said advance purchase deals "provide for member states to indemnify the manufacturer for certain liabilities incurred under specific and strict conditions" but "liability still remains with the companies"

 

So we can't confirm they "have and indemnity", but I'd agree they will be pushing for one and may get one. Either way, doesn't really matter does it, making loads of people really ill when you were trying to save the world isn't gonna be good for business.

 

1 minute ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Any 'immunity passport' concept should not be based on proof you have the jab. It should be based on prooving you have immunity and can't pass it on to others  i.e Proof via reliable antigen test results. As I said, the virus can still spread by shedding and poor hygene even when immunity is present. 

 

I think rather than using 'virtue signalling' and attempted guilt trips as a basis for an argument, perhaps it would be better if we stuck to the science and common sense at least.

I never stated it was proof of having the vaccine, I chose my words deliberately

[Guest]

1 minute ago, sirweste said:

People often say 'what would have Labour done better'. That's utterly irrelevant and frustrating whataboutry.

Being critical of the complete mess we are in, the constant impression that it's all being made up on the spot is shared by many. The gov should be held to account for this. I don't care in the slightest what Starmer would have done, I care what has been done and how they will be held accountable, how we will reflect and improve and how we will put in plans and processes to prevent such a mess in the future; when the next pandemic roles through.

 

Personally I think the critical nature of Starmer probably would have been better than Johnson's insert nature here. But we'll never know and I don't really care what he might have done. I care about getting it right now, learning from mistakes made, which seemingly the gov haven't done at anypoint since Feb / Jan. The mistakes at the beginning were perhaps excusable, unprecedented times and all that. We've more than 6 months of precedent now, time to stop ******* it up aye.

It's nothing of the sort. That response is often cited when the opposition are exposed for not being able to do anything constructive.

 

It's entirely relevant - shouting from the sidelines  and showing a distinct lack of leadership in directing his MP's yesterday has exposed him even more.

 

 

[dor]

15 hours ago, Rickent said:

It would have saved people from the large droplets but most if not all of the germs, especially virus particles would have passed straight through the mask, but you felt safer due to the fact he was wearing a mask so my point stands.

Virus particles are minute compared to the holes in the fabric of masks, common sense tells you that they cannot offer any real protection.

Yes of course the virus particles are smaller, actually much smaller, than the holes in the mask.  How thick do you think we  are not to see this.  But that is not the point.  A naked virus wouldn't travel more than millimetres on its own, not to mention being slowed down by passing through a mask.  The viruses will be enclosed by aerosols or blobs of mucus, many of which will be stopped by the mask.  What does go through will be slowed significantly and so will travel less far.   

Whilst no one claims that the mask will prevent all transmission, it will cut it down significantly and so reduce the risk of it being passed on.  Common sense tells you that anything that can reduce the range and volume of virus-laden particles offers real, if not complete, protection.

[Jim Riley]

My Boat is 5 miles from my home, currently moored in Todmorden, in the West yorks tier 3 area. I live in the Gmcr T3 area adjacent. I wish to move my boat up to my mooring, 100m inside the GMT3 area, across the border. The rules say I can't travel across the boundary.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

There is clearly stuff that could have been done better but some seem to forget this was an unprecedented event in living memory. 

 

Lawyer or not I bet Starmer would have struggled too, for now he can just criticise from the sidelines along with some of his party who don't really have to worry about anything other than seeking out things to criticise without having to do anything substantial to contribute to defeating the pandemic.

 

Little wonder Boris calls him 'Captain Hindsight'.

Well that IS the job of an opposition. It's suppose to criticise to make the other lot think harder.  It can't really do much else.

In my civil service  days, there would have been outcry if jobs had been handed out to the boss's mates without a public tender - in fsct, it was illegal to do so. And may well still be, as fas I know.

But the crucial error in your post is to say this was unprecedented. It wasn't. There was even a major exercise a few years ago which stated what was needed in the case of a pandemic, the likelihood of one happening (high) and where current practices fell short. It was first buried, then ignored.  Ministers said they'd had enough of experts, they went with common sense. 

Captain Hindsight? Starmer's been pushing all along for better support and tighter restrictions. Damn sight better than Major Disaster and his best mate, Private Profit.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Arthur Marshall

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Well that IS the job of an opposition. It's suppose to criticise to make the other lot think harder.  It can't really do much else.

In my civil service  days, there would have been outcry if jobs had been handed out to the boss's mates without a public tender - in fsct, it was illegal to do so. And may well still be, as fas I know.

But the crucial error in your post is to say this was unprecedented. It wasn't. There was even a major exercise a few years ago which stated what was needed in the case of a pandemic, the likelihood of one happening (high) and where current practices fell short. It was first buried, then ignored.  Ministers said they'd had enough of experts, they went with common sense. 

Captain Hindsight? Starmer's been pushing all along for better support and tighter restrictions. Damn sight better than Major Disaster and his best mate, Private Profit.

If he was pushing for harder restrictions why did he instruct his MP's to abstain.

 

Which exercise are you referring to Cygnus??

Edited December 2, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Athy]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

But the crucial error in your post is to say this was unprecedented. It wasn't. There was even a major exercise a few years ago which stated what was needed in the case of a pandemic, the likelihood of one happening (high) and where current practices fell short.

But that doesn't alter the fact that it's unprecedented, surely?

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Major Disaster and his best mate, Private Profit.

A pair of rankers?

Edited December 2, 2020 by Athy

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Athy said:

But that doesn't alter the fact that it's unprecedented, surely?

Yes, that is my understanding of the word.

 

Just because planning for something has taken place  (But I don't believe the exercise in question envisaged the scale of this pandemic) it still remains an unprecedented event when it actually happens for real.

 

I think it's it's reasonable to criticise the response to the need for PPE though. That clearly should have been better planned for, particularly in terms of nursing homes and care homes. One presumes the exercise will have flagged this shortfall which should have been addressed to avoid the need to having to pay 'well over the odds' when world wide demand surged dramatically.

[Jim Riley]

17 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

If he was pushing for harder restrictions why did he instruct his MP's to abstain.

 

Which exercise are you referring to Cygnus??

Because, the tories being a squabbling shambles with umpteen voting against boris, the only option was to let "the best of a bad lot" through, to at least have some restrictions. If Labour had voted against then the tories who want us all to die would have had their way, no restrictions, darwin rules.