| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Ridiculous isn’t it.Originally Posted by goats
I bet NHS staff can’t wait for New Year.
Our politicians can then wear a NHS pin badge, give them a clap and eulogise about what a great job they do when hospital porters are taking bodies down the mortuary and doctors are deciding who has a ventilator.
They're following the science, like they've been doing all along.
Honest.
Unless someone has a terminally ill relative or close friend who they know is not going to be around for Christmas 2021, I don't get this clamour to "save our Christmas". How many Christmases does the average person experience in their lifetime? More than enough to cope with having to do without one for one year out of their lives I'd say and, of course, even if there were pretty strict lockdown regulations in place, it would hardly be as if Christmas was cancelled would it?
If it was my decision to make, I would say that anyone who the medical profession felt was not going to survive another year could have a "normal" Christmas where they get to see their family and close friends, but everyone else would have to abide by the rules that are going to be in place for much of December - hopefully, Easter 2021 can be an alternative Christmas for one year only.
Ironically, I do have a terminally ill relative who is in an extremely vulnerable position and that's precisely why I'm not going to put her at any further risk by trying to 'save Christmas'.
Under the current rules here in Wales, I'm not allowed to go and sit with her in her garden, but I could meet up with her in a pub if she was able to leave her house - which she isn't. Pretty soon it's possible that I could go to a football match with approximately 4,000 other people, but not be allowed to sit in a garden with a terminally ill relative.
It's all about the science, allegedly.
Mass testing available in Merthyr from Saturday. On the same day there were a number of local football matches played. Rugby matches can’t be played as it would exceed the rule of 30.
As clear as crystal isn’t it?
Person 1: the rules don't make sense
Person 2: there are too many rules, I don't understand them
At the moment you are person 1 but you are still more likely to follow the rules (or break the rules in a safe way) than person 2 who is interviewed on the TV frequently but needs the rules to be as simple as possible.
Ideally, the rules would be that you can meet in a garden but only doing so in a safe way. Here is part a, b, c and d on how you can make this safer. However, that stops us being "in it together" which, so the theory goes, is a way that ensures compliance is higher and a person who feels there are already too many rules will stop listening after "you can meet in a garden".Gardens have been included in these restrictions because in winter it is much more likely that people meeting in a garden will need or want to go indoors into the home, and as already explained a lot of the transmission of coronavirus is happening in people’s homes: https://gov.wales/coronavirus-regula...#section-39235
We know that the longer you spend with someone, the closer you get to them and the less ventilation there is the more likely the virus will spread between you. I am sure you are far more likely to want to get close and spend longer with a person you care about than a stranger at a football match so it is a riskier situation and while you can do it safely a Person 2 cannot.
Can people travel to Wales from England after this lockdown? Some friends of mine want to know if they can hire a self contained house for a few days around Christmas?
Self-contained house?????????????
None of that really strikes me as being as bad as the article makes out really. What's wrong with combining different parts of the trial to estimate the efficiency?
It doesn't look a perfectly controlled experiment with the different doses providing different efficiencies but is that really a major problem when the minimum efficiency is still over 60%?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...zeneca-vaccine
Now that the trial details are in the public domain I doubt the US FDA will approve it until further trails are done in elderly patients. I guess the UK MHRA might approve it for use in those under 55, but not the elderly based on current data.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/20...mpression=true
more cronyism from the Tories. disgusting stuff
Still reckon the Oxford will be first rolled out to the vulnerable.
Pubs shut again from Tuesday I reckon.
The claim made by AstraZeneca / Oxford that the vaccine has 70% efficacy seems hard to justify given that figure was achieved by combining the results of 2 different dosing regimes one of which was a small subset containing no over 55s (90%) and the other a larger group which did contain over 55s (62%).
Surely the correct headline should be the vaccine has 62% efficacy but that further studies are to be carried out on a large representative population to see if the half dose then full dose regime does have greater efficacy.
Given the enormous political capital invested in this vaccine by the UK Government I wonder whether this has had the effect of pressurising AstraZeneca / Oxford to make a claim which at this point in time, according to some independent scientific opinion, does not appear to stand up to close scrutiny? A headline of 62% efficacy would not have looked great compared to the 95% efficacy claimed by the other 2 vaccines.
And yet flu vaccines have 60% efficacy apparently, so while I can understand the need for further testing of the 90% claim on older people, it seems that the Oxford vaccine falls within standards which have been accepted for other vaccines.
if they're effectively cherry picking results to appear better the. really we don't know what the efficacy is.
From what I've read it was all blown out of proportion by 1 (one) journo opining bthat the US drug agency probably wouldn't approve it.
Lets be fair, do we care if they do or not if it works.
It is far better suited to treating the poor of the world than something that needs -70C to survive.
The USA can do waht they like!
Efficacy has been put at 62% and I've not come across anyone directly contesting that figure yet, the issue is with whether the 90% claim extends to over 55s and, for the moment, there's no way of knowing that.
You believe want the yanks are saying? They desperately want there £20 a shot one to be the one the world wants, at less than a fifth of the cost the Oxford one presents a massive threat to that. If they can achieve 90% with a lesser dose also then happy days.....
Even if it had a reliability of 60% it would still be good enough to make everything go back to normal. The two vaccines coming out with the 90%+ made everyone go a bit mad I think. Of course it'll be better if the different doses do give it a better efficiency but as long as it is safe and over 50% efficiency I'm sure it'll get approved at least in the UK and EU.
Most people seem to be overlooking that even 62% efficacy means that 62% will have immunity to Covid and the remaining 38% will have a milder disease.
None of the people vaccinated in the trails required hospital treatment.
Also something that really annoys me is the comparison to the flu jab. The reason the flu jab is 60% effective is that they predict which multiple strains of flu will be prevalent that year and adjust the jab accordingly. The Covid vaccine is targeting one single strain.
Good points
Exactly people get lost in the headlines. To get this type of vaccine which is safe and efficient approved in under a year in unbelievable. Get it to people who are in positions where they get high viral loads and people who are at risk of dying first and we can start unlocking a bit. We are so close now, another few months and we will be almost there.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
