Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Not always after some reflection.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Not always after some reflection.
[QUOTE=Jordi Culé;5162705]Currently the scientists say that they are not sure if those that have been vaccinated can carry the virus and spread it o others. They are urging caution in those that have had a jab, and that's fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisvaneblue
[QUOTE=lisvaneblue;5162717]I’ve received one and got advised I could still carry the virus which was then and still is problematic. It’s obvious now (to me) but like the dullard I can be thought it prevented getting the virus until advised otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
[QUOTE=Jordi Culé;5162719]Which jab did you get? Thought I read the Oxford one works different and stops you carrying it also.......happy to be corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisvaneblue
[QUOTE=goats;5162726]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
Like the dick that I am, I didn’t actually ask. Just happily went along with it. The only side affect I’ve had so far is Bill Gates seems to always figure in my dreams, running naked in a field, throwing dollars into the air and screaming about world domination.
[QUOTE=Jordi Culé;5162719]I think that’s hopefully precautionary as there were no studies done into it by either of the jabs.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisvaneblue
The Pfizer one in Israel looks like it is stopping the spread so we have to hope the AZ one does the same.
Attachment 4285 coming down nicely at the moment, in a couple more weeks we'll get the people who like to criticize Mark Drakeford changing from criticizing the numbers of infections to saying he's being too cautious and damaging the economy.
Nicola Sturgeon
The Daily Telegraph says Ms Sturgeon has been accused of "showboating" and "attempting to curry favour" with the EU by promising to publish the data. By revealing how many doses Scotland expects each week, the first minister hopes to counter claims she is failing to roll out the vaccine quickly enough in her country, the paper reports. It says the UK government has refused to publish details of how much vaccine supply it expects from manufacturers each week, partly because of concern EU nations could use this to put pressure on companies to divert doses.
She really is vile. Independence for her is the biggest and most important thing in her life.
What’s folks thoughts on how far we take this lockdown? With rates in cardiff at 182 and swansea 120, and that was a week ago, will another month see it almost gone? Mitigating risk with vaccine and tracing whilst opening up things possible in the next few weeks?
I don’t think Cardiff has been this low since October. Maybe we will give the eat out to help out a swerve this time.....
why is that vile?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
sharing information helps everyone learn about the most effective ways to combat this and future pandemics. the EU are not our enemy. and lives lost there don't count less than lives lost here
She’s not sharing information to help, she’d be sharing confidential information regarding supplies and contracts, don’t see how anyone can defend her if that’s what she intends doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
She's been slagged off by the Scottish Tories and by Boris Johnson about vaccine take-up and roll-out... I wonder why they're now upset at her for potentially releasing data to show the (potential) truth of the matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
Something doesn't add up.
Isn't it quite likely releasing the data could put AZ in a difficult position and stop us getting enough vaccine though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
drakeford moving the goalposts or should i say traffic lights now it seems on radio wales:sherlock:
See what Drakeford has to say today. Probably stay in lockdown for another 3 week period and then staged openings mid Feb onwards. Priority school years, maybe gyms and high street shops after that. Pubs will be the last to open mid to end of March or something I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by goats
The rates are coming down really well in South Wales but we've been burnt before opening things up too quickly.
I would honestly prefer them to take their time and get it right and look towards Easter when many of the vulnerable and over 70's will have had their 2 doses hopefully.
Summer is having it this year!!
AZ are in a difficult position regardless. It all comes down to what is in the (presently unpublished) contracts with the UK and EU. If she wants to put facts out there to counter Tory misinformation (backed by the Telegraph etc) about the real position in Scotland, then good on her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
It is usually quite instructive when seeing headlines like this in the Telegraph and Express to see who is doing the accusing to justify the headlines. In this instance the three people quoted are Peter Bone, Ian Duncan Smith and David Jones. All MPs who are uber-Brexiteers and key members of the ERG.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
The Scottish Tories, Davidson and Ross make no such accusation, more that this is a smokescreen for Scotland's relatively poor performance. A far more reasonable claim.
Goes to show just how easy it is to get enraged by headlines without studying where they came from though!
She has been asked not to but for political spite she is about to disclose what is probably confidential information from the UK/AZ supply contract. She's nuts and dangerous. She wouldn't care a shit if AZ stopped supplying as long as she can score political points.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
AZ are getting into hot water because of the general incompetence of EU officials, and now her. They are selling this product at cost price for the benefit of everyone. They'll be a 'force majure' paragraph in the contract I hope AZ don't use it.
And ,sad to say, your comments are just as myopic.
Yeah, but it's like a hangover, you wouldn't have it if you hadn't had a bloody good night before it! :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
'political spite', 'she's nuts and dangerous', 'she wouldn't care a shit if AZ stopped supplying', 'score political points'....Quote:
Originally Posted by lisvaneblue
And I'm myopic?
Just because I'd have Nicola Sturgeon in charge of this pandemic any day of the week over Boris Johnson? OK.
:hehe:
No way pubs to sell just alchohol by sometime in March.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster munch
May maybe.
Your post mentioned nothing about preference for Nicola Sturgeon in the pandemic. You were supporting her publishing confidential contract information. As I said this is purely political and could, once the Eu gets the data, affect the supplies of vaccine to UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
You seemed more interested in correcting supposed misinformation from national newspapers, even if it meant risking our national vaccine supply chain
More good vaccine news, a single dose Belgian vaccine has proved 66 per cent effective (85 per cent for preventing serious cases) - Britain has ordered 30 million doses of this one.
The bad(dish) news is that it was only 57 per cent effective in South Africa, but the makers are looking into whether a double dose would provide different results.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55857530
One question on that, not to you but to the people reporting these results.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
If the vaccine prevents people from getting the virus in the first place, how can they possibly know that it is more effective in preventing serious cases ? That would be the report on a possible cure I'd think.
Shirley if it works there are no cases serious or other wise and if there are cases serious or not, that means it didn't work.
now that is myopicQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Because it’s not 100% effective some people still get ill. But those who have got ill have not needed hospital treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
It doesn't. A vaccine teaches your body how to deal with the virus. It cannot stop you catching it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I get that and accept I was being a little simplistic but it still remains that if someone who has had it then gets a severe attack of the virus it must mean that the vaccine didn't work in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
You shirley cannot say that if a person gets a severe attack after having the vaccine and then recovers that this demonstrates that it works better on people with severe cases than those with mild or no virus problems?
That makes no sense what so ever.
No it doesnt. But havent seen that anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I dont know about anyone else but dont know what your getting at.
The vaccine even if you get symptoms they are less severe less hospitalsions less death.
I think one of them has a 100 % effectiveness against death. It even may have been hospitalisation.
I have got no idea what you're getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Simole really. From TOBW's post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
they said that the vaccine works better on people with severe attacks.
If it works they should not be having attacks.
If they are giving it to people who are already suffering from as severe attack then they are using it as a cure not a preventative. (I'm sure they are not actually doing this)
No vaccines are 100% effective at stopping everyone getting ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
They aren't giving it to people who are already ill. They give it to people, some people still catch the virus but it stops them getting it severely.
So most people won't get covid, the ones that do still get covid won't get it bad enough to need to go to hospital.
I understand the way it works which is why Iquestioned the statement that it works "66 per cent effective (85 per cent for preventing serious cases) "Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
It is the reference to serious cases I question. If it works how do they know that Mr A or Mrs B would have had serious effects?
And if they do have serious effect than it hasn't worked.
I don't think know, it's just 85% of people who got ill after taking the vaccine didn't get serious illness when compared to the placebo group.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
They compare it to a placebo group.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
The placebo group is not relavent to the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
They can say that people in the olacebo group got severe syptoms, I agree. But that is not what they said.
They said as I quoted: It is 85% effective in peventing severe symptoms. If sypmtoms are prevented how can they say that a person would, without the vaccine have had severe symptoms? It's nonsense.
85% effective compared to a placebo group. That's what the number means.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
It isn't nonsense it's how it's always done :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
It's a statistic against the placebo group not an actual figure, that's how efficacy is calculated at least until they have psychics in the teams assessing it.
If you want to know more about it read this - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...623-4/fulltext
I get the % figure, I understand it, it is the remark about severe symptoms that puzzles. If it works then people don't get severe symptoms and if it doesn't they do. But if it works how can they tell that a paerson would have got mild or severe symptoms? That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
I don't think you get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
100 people in the trial get covid. 5 are in the vaccine group, 95 are in the placebo group. So the vaccine is about 95% effective.
1-(5/95) =0.947
Repeat.for those with severe symptoms.