The UK response - Part II - read OP

Donald Trump

AllForIt wrote: »

But I thought the UK had the highest cases in Europe, surely they should sort themselves out first. I don't see what 'poor countries' has to do with anything.

Would you not postpone receiving your own vaccine for a month so that a frontline worker in a poor country could get theirs a month earlier?


I think they should do it. Fair enough, vaccinate all the vulnerable. As someone said, yes there is an issue over herd immunity and those that cannot be vaccinated, but on the balance of things I think they need to be fair to the poor countries.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

For feck sake. I'd have thought they'd have vaccinated captain Tom!

https://www.independent.ie/news/100-year-old-captain-tom-who-raised-millions-for-nhs-is-hospitalised-after-testing-positive-for-covid-19-40033235.html

He probably has been. They seem to think that even if you are vaccinated you can still get and pass it on.

Hope the old boys pulls through, pneumonia is pretty harsh at that age (at any age tbh)

A Dub in Glasgo

Donald Trump wrote: »

For feck sake. I'd have thought they'd have vaccinated captain Tom!

https://www.independent.ie/news/100-year-old-captain-tom-who-raised-millions-for-nhs-is-hospitalised-after-testing-positive-for-covid-19-40033235.html

The Tories decided to go for the numbers rather than the JCVI priority groups in order

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

He probably has been. They seem to think that even if you are vaccinated you can still get and pass it on.

Hope the old boys pulls through, pneumonia is pretty harsh at that age (at any age tbh)

It said he wasn't vaccinated because he had pneumonia recently.

I'd have thought though that given the publicity they had around him at the start that he'd have been first in the queue

He should have been one of the first I'd say.

Peregrinus

Donald Trump wrote: »

It said he wasn't vaccinated because he had pneumonia recently.

I'd have thought though that given the publicity they had around him at the start that he'd have been first in the queue

He should have been one of the first I'd say.

He would have been, if he hadn't had pneumonia. Suffering from (and being treated for) pneumonia is a contraindication for the vaccine, so they defer vaccination until your treatment is complete.

AllForIt

Donald Trump wrote: »

Would you not postpone receiving your own vaccine for a month so that a frontline worker in a poor country could get theirs a month earlier?

Well since you are asking me a personal question the answer is I won't be taking the vaccine for a good year as I'm under 50 and I'm in full health so the question doesn't apply to me. I'm actually happy to leave it as long as possible and see how things pan out.

I think they should do it. Fair enough, vaccinate all the vulnerable. As someone said, yes there is an issue over herd immunity and those that cannot be vaccinated, but on the balance of things I think they need to be fair to the poor countries.

My problem is with the way the WHO worked this recommendation or is it instruction. They said it is an issue of 'fairness'. This implies that even if we did share it with them as they suggest we are only doing our moral duty therefore no credit for doing so and if we don't that's bad bad bad.

What they should have done is set out scientifically why it would be better to do it their way in the sense it is the best way to deal with the virus overall. I have no idea what is the best way as I'm not qualified. I have heard ppl make an analogy that if you are on a crashing plane is is better to put your mask on first and when you have yourself sorted you can then help others.

I just didn't like their moralizing on the issue, they sound like a bunch of socialists. They will get the vaccine eventually and when they do they should be grateful they get it all from the countries that produced it.

Pete_Cavan

AllForIt wrote: »

They will get the vaccine eventually and when they do they should be grateful they get it all from the countries that produced it.

Countries don't produce vaccines (not in Europe anyway), they are produced by companies.

Galwayguy35

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Countries don't produce vaccines (not in Europe anyway), they are produced by companies.

Yeah and where are those companies?

Europe and America.

The WHO have a brass neck expecting the countries where some of the vaccines were made and other vaccines paid for from other countries give them away before all their own population is jabbed.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if over here tricky Micky does just that.

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1356904251864330240

PommieBast

Seth Brundle wrote: »

https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1356904251864330240

I wonder if anyone will dust off that report into the UK's preparedness for pandemics that was written back in 2015..

Seth Brundle

erm

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1357263425156636673

Panthro

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56149494

Fairly getting through the vaccinations.
Might actually see a summer.

afatbollix

Slow end of restrictions.

But they have at least put a date to the end of restrictions of the 21st of June...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56158405

Call me Al

Their targets and plans are great to see.
What I'd be more interested in seeing though is their vaccine rollout schedule plan. They've a fantastic 18mill given one shot, but only 700k given the second shot.
That timetable is what will dictate how quickly they can open up, and how realistic this timescale is..

RobMc59

Interesting article detailing how the UK's approach to securing vaccines left nothing to chance.
"How the UK gained an edge with AstraZeneca’s vaccine commitments – POLITICO" https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/amp/

robinph

Call me Al wrote: »

Their targets and plans are great to see.
What I'd be more interested in seeing though is their vaccine rollout schedule plan. They've a fantastic 18mill given one shot, but only 700k given the second shot.
That timetable is what will dictate how quickly they can open up, and how realistic this timescale is..

I'm due to be called up for mine any day now, but just at the point when the number of second doses should start being ramped up so must then reduce the numbers getting first doses.

trixi001

Call me Al wrote: »

Their targets and plans are great to see.
What I'd be more interested in seeing though is their vaccine rollout schedule plan. They've a fantastic 18mill given one shot, but only 700k given the second shot.
That timetable is what will dictate how quickly they can open up, and how realistic this timescale is..

Well if the North is anything to go by the plan seems to be

Up to now people have been vaccinated via hubs (7 regional hubs - mostly pfizer vaccine) or via their own GP (AZ vaccine) - but now an additional hub is opening for everyone under 60 - the SSE arena in Belfast, so i assume the plan is the 7 regional hubs and the GP's now swap from first doses and do the 2nd doses for those already vaccinated and the the new hub (or possibly more hubs planned) do the first doses fro those not vaccinated.

My mum got her appointment for the 2nd dose automatically when she booked her first dose, and its exactly 10 weeks after the 1st one.

PommieBast

RobMc59 wrote: »

Interesting article detailing how the UK's approach to securing vaccines left nothing to chance.
"How the UK gained an edge with AstraZeneca’s vaccine commitments – POLITICO" https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-the-eu-and-uk-astrazeneca-contracts/amp/

That £65m put on the table for Oxford back in April is the sort of thing that really made the difference. The UK government also at an early stage agreed to take all responsibility for medical liability.

RobMc59

PommieBast wrote: »

That £65m put on the table for Oxford back in April is the sort of thing that really made the difference. The UK government also at an early stage agreed to take all responsibility for medical liability.

Regardless of what many people think of johnson and co,the UK vaccine strategy has been very good.The article I posted shows their contract was very precise which left Astra Zeneca with no chance of fobbing the UK off .

robinph

PommieBast wrote: »

That £65m put on the table for Oxford back in April is the sort of thing that really made the difference. The UK government also at an early stage agreed to take all responsibility for medical liability.

They knew they had screwed up badly by that point, so another wad of cash gambled away wasn't ever going to be too much of a problem if it hadn't worked. Nothing to lose for them at that point.

PommieBast

RobMc59 wrote: »

Regardless of what many people think of johnson and co,the UK vaccine strategy has been very good.The article I posted shows their contract was very precise which left Astra Zeneca with no chance of fobbing the UK off .

Given it was back in April and how badly just about everything prior and since was screwed up, real question is why this one thing was so different. Pity it is going to be the poster of pro-Brexit propaganda.

RobMc59

PommieBast wrote: »

Given it was back in April and how badly just about everything prior and since was screwed up, real question is why this one thing was so different. Pity it is going to be the poster of pro-Brexit propaganda.

Classic whataboutry doesn't change the fact that the UK strategy regarding vaccines has been first class.

Call me Al

robinph wrote: »

I'm due to be called up for mine any day now, but just at the point when the number of second doses should start being ramped up so must then reduce the numbers getting first doses.

But maybe their rate of supply will also increase? Since EU rate of distribution is set to start ramping up.
So maybe they can keep that rate up.

Seth Brundle

Looks like the UK will repeat the Eat Out to help Out scheme despite it increasing infection rates and having a limited economic effect

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1364704482710421506

robinph

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Looks like the UK will repeat the Eat Out to help Out scheme despite it increasing infection rates and having a limited economic effect

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1364704482710421506

Was the scheme directly the cause of the increase in cases? Next week the teaching unions will be saying that the entire reason for increasing cases was schools going back, then after Easter university lecturer's will say it was because of unis opening up.

The scheme is a fairly sensible idea. Doesn't apply to drink, doesn't apply on Thursday to Sunday so is only for spreading people out visiting establishments on less traditionally busy days, which has to help with any potential overcrowding at the weekend. Can't remember exactly when they started it, but it wasn't the sole change in restrictions at the time, and was going on before the rise in cases happened. Pubs and restaurants were also open for a couple of months before it started with the same operating restrictions, but that isn't blamed for a rise in cases.

If pubs and restaurants were doing things wrong then change how they operate as that is the unsafe bit. Giving an incentive to people to visit those pubs and restaurants isn't the problem if they are not being run safely.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

Was the scheme directly the cause of the increase in cases? . . .

The study suggests that yes, it was, in part. It wasn't just a coincidence of timing between the rollout of the scheme and the rise in infections; there was also a correlation between how much uptake of the scheme there was in different areas and how much infections rose, and there was a correlation between the terminiation of the scheme and a decline in infection rates.

Plus, this isn't a surprising result; it's the result you would expect, unless you have zero or negligible infectivity in the population. SFAIK the purpose of the study wasn't to find out whether the scheme had led to increased infections, but how much it had done so; how much of the increased infection rate was attributable to the scheme, as opposed to other factors?

(FWIW, the suggested answer is that "between 8% and 17% of newly detected infection clusters could be linked to the scheme".)

JP Liz V1

Public Health England said on Sunday that three cases of the variant had been detected in England and three in Scotland, but that the identity of one of those carrying the virus was unknown as they had not provided their contact details.

The P1 variant, also known as the B1128 variant, shares some of the same mutations as the highly transmissible South African variant and was first identified in Manaus, Brazil, in January. It is thought that it could respond less well to current vaccines.

Two of the English cases are from a single household in south Gloucestershire, a member of whom returned from Brazil a month after the variant was first identified and five days before the hotel quarantine policy came into force.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/person-believed-brazilian-covid-variant-185507100.html

RobMc59

Slightly amusing take on the UK's approach to Covid-19 and UK perception overseas.

"I hate to say it, but Britain's doing OK. Even Germany envies us... | Brexit | The Guardian" https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/28/i-hate-to-say-it-but-britains-doing-ok-even-germany-envies-us

afatbollix

Does anyone have the graph that was put out in January about predictions on deaths by mid-March?

I can't find it and I want to see if they are on track to that graph.

Schools back on Monday so it will be interesting to see if it starts a 4th wave or are they really on the way to being open by the 21st of June.

Good ginny pigs for the rest of the world.

partyguinness

Now, it is well known that the COVID figures are rather inflated with hospital sticking down C19 no matter what to speed up the release of bodies.

Plenty of first hand stories from families of people heading to A&E dying of heart attacks etc and terminally ill cancer patients finding C19 listed on the death cert. Families calling BS on that...

Friends of mine are nurses who work in C19 wards saying that the figures and situation is nowhere near as bad as it comes across on the media.

Just had an interesting conversation here in the UK with a chap whose brother is a doctor in the local hospital. Basically, the local hospital trust gets £35k per positive C19 death....well, that is interesting.