Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No expert so not qualified to respond but... This makes interesting reading (no seriously it does). In particular table 5 page 13. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/993879/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_15.pdf *compare Alpha with Delta, tell me what you see?" Delta is more transmissible (is that a word?), but not as lethal (so far)? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question for out covid experts... We have a marvellous vaccine program with many more vaccinated than our EU friends.. And yet..UK and Portugal rates are increasing rapidly... And Italy Spain Germany Belgium rates are decreasing? What are they doing right that we aren't? " Ask them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question for out covid experts... We have a marvellous vaccine program with many more vaccinated than our EU friends.. And yet..UK and Portugal rates are increasing rapidly... And Italy Spain Germany Belgium rates are decreasing? What are they doing right that we aren't? " Germany, Italy, Spain have 80, 59 and 41 deaths a day over a 7 day average, respectively. UK 11 deaths a day over a 7 day average. What are they doing better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because it's all a load of utter bollocks. Simples! " Dear me  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because it's all a load of utter bollocks. Simples! " Couldn't have summed it up any better myself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question for out covid experts... We have a marvellous vaccine program with many more vaccinated than our EU friends.. And yet..UK and Portugal rates are increasing rapidly... And Italy Spain Germany Belgium rates are decreasing? What are they doing right that we aren't? Ask them. " Helpful... But my contacts with EU governments aren't returning my calls | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No expert so not qualified to respond but... This makes interesting reading (no seriously it does). In particular table 5 page 13. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/993879/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_15.pdf *compare Alpha with Delta, tell me what you see?" That is interesting... If I've read it correctly its saying that 3.7% of delta infections require a hospital visit compared to 6.9% of alpha cases... That alpha admissions are 2.8% of infections and delta is 1.2 % of infections. And that alpha variant deaths are 1.1% of infections and delta variant are significantly lower at 0.1 % of infection s... Which seems to suggest the delta variant is considerably less deadly than the alpha variant. Which I'd have thought is good news... So extrapolating.. Today's 11k infections would lead to 132 hospital admissions and...11 deaths... Interesting also to see gamma and eta variants? And Voc Feb 2022. Good info thanks for sharing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say?" Maybe. I read something on BBC that stated you are more likely to be infected in the 3 weeks after your first jab... And less likely after your second jab... When you see football stadia with 10s of thousands in... Well it looks amazing but just wonder if there will be a price to pay this winter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say?" What makes you think that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? " Obviously the thread topic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say?" Given that hospitalisations and deaths are low, and the spread is in young, unvaccinated people, that would indicate the virus is as good as they say | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because it's all a load of utter bollocks. Simples! " What’s bollocks... specifically? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? Given that hospitalisations and deaths are low, and the spread is in young, unvaccinated people, that would indicate the virus is as good as they say" It would be helpful to see the stats, the demographic of those infected and admitted rather than the words they use to encourage folks to get jabbed and whether or not they had none one or both jabs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? Given that hospitalisations and deaths are low, and the spread is in young, unvaccinated people, that would indicate the virus is as good as they say" I read something last year, talking about viruses it was a virologist, if you consider this and think in the terms we do as people, a virus basically just wants to be infectious and spread, it's not actually wanting to kill anyone as that's actually counter productive to its own survival in the long run, maybe we are now seeing this with the delta variant, in that it's mutated to be more infectious, and it's potency has been lowered. You only have to look back in history to see that many viruses have had huge impact at first and over time become more tolerable, take the common cold, its a virus that has been around for nearly 200 years, There are no records but did that have similar deadly impact when it first began, and look at what is like when we get it now, I hope coronavirus doesn't take too long to neuter itself but it will eventually | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic?" It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No expert so not qualified to respond but... This makes interesting reading (no seriously it does). In particular table 5 page 13. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/993879/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_15.pdf *compare Alpha with Delta, tell me what you see? That is interesting... If I've read it correctly its saying that 3.7% of delta infections require a hospital visit compared to 6.9% of alpha cases... That alpha admissions are 2.8% of infections and delta is 1.2 % of infections. And that alpha variant deaths are 1.1% of infections and delta variant are significantly lower at 0.1 % of infection s... Which seems to suggest the delta variant is considerably less deadly than the alpha variant. Which I'd have thought is good news... So extrapolating.. Today's 11k infections would lead to 132 hospital admissions and...11 deaths... Interesting also to see gamma and eta variants? And Voc Feb 2022. Good info thanks for sharing. " With regards to those figures :- Of the 9,371 -197 (adj) NET new #covid19 cases reported in England today 2,807 were from tests taken yesterday (31%) 5,322 from Tuesday (58%) 755 from Monday (8%) 170 Sunday (2%) 85 Saturday (1%) 16 Friday 5 last Thursday | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats why the 7 day average is a better measure." I guess the issue here is that it's fairly obvious from the data it takes on average 2 days to get a test result, we can see that figure is around 6k so why do our authorities bundle up the figures knowing our media will twist and contort any figure they present, to make it look as bad as possible? Sensationalist journalism = more views | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it all comes back to re-opening too early. its only a short while ago the UK allowed people to travel to Portugal for holidays - I be the Portuguese not regret that! Here in Ireland we have the lowest rates since last summer. But we still have strict travel restrictions - including requiring UK visitors to quarantine for 10 days and then take a PCR test to show they don't have covid." I do wonder what the gig is with Portugal... We seem to treat it the same as India.. There must be cabinet ministers who have family or investments in Portugal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. " Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks " Public health England has stated similar, would think the Dara is on their website.. As to whether some will believe it, that's another thing.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? Given that hospitalisations and deaths are low, and the spread is in young, unvaccinated people, that would indicate the virus is as good as they say I read something last year, talking about viruses it was a virologist, if you consider this and think in the terms we do as people, a virus basically just wants to be infectious and spread, it's not actually wanting to kill anyone as that's actually counter productive to its own survival in the long run, maybe we are now seeing this with the delta variant, in that it's mutated to be more infectious, and it's potency has been lowered. You only have to look back in history to see that many viruses have had huge impact at first and over time become more tolerable, take the common cold, its a virus that has been around for nearly 200 years, There are no records but did that have similar deadly impact when it first began, and look at what is like when we get it now, I hope coronavirus doesn't take too long to neuter itself but it will eventually" I find the more infectious point interesting... If you remember way back when the Kent variant came to the fore... We were told that was (I'm going to make these numbers up as I can't remember exactly ..) Something like 40 to 100 % more infectious.. And it became the dominant strain. And now we have the delta variant and that is (depending which scientist you listen to) something like 40 to 100 % more transmissible than the Kent variant. Now let's go back 2 variants... That is saying that the delta variant is somewhere between 80 and 200% more transmissible than the original virus.... And given that people were catching that if you looked at someone without a face mask... This delta variant must be very very very easy to catch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement "May I ask what today's announcement is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
May I ask what today's announcement is?"Haha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks Public health England has stated similar, would think the Dara is on their website.. As to whether some will believe it, that's another thing.." I found this on gov website... "According to PHE’s latest variant technical briefing, as of 14 June, a total of 806 people have been hospitalised with the Delta variant, an increase of 423 since last week. Of these, 527 were unvaccinated, and only 84 of the 806 had received both doses." but that refers only to delta variant... So 806 hospitalised... 527 with no jab... 195 with 1 jab...84 with 2 jabs It doesn't seem to break anything down by age group or I can find it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement "Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks Public health England has stated similar, would think the Dara is on their website.. As to whether some will believe it, that's another thing.. I found this on gov website... "According to PHE’s latest variant technical briefing, as of 14 June, a total of 806 people have been hospitalised with the Delta variant, an increase of 423 since last week. Of these, 527 were unvaccinated, and only 84 of the 806 had received both doses." but that refers only to delta variant... So 806 hospitalised... 527 with no jab... 195 with 1 jab...84 with 2 jabs It doesn't seem to break anything down by age group or I can find it... " Sounds the same as the press releases, tbh not sure how you can find out anything more detailed.. ONS perhaps in due course? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
May I ask what today's announcement is?
Haha"What's funny? Someone suggested an announcement has been made today and it would appear to relate specifically to young people. I've asked specifically which announcement so that I can understand. Not sure how this constitutes comedy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks Public health England has stated similar, would think the Dara is on their website.. As to whether some will believe it, that's another thing.. I found this on gov website... "According to PHE’s latest variant technical briefing, as of 14 June, a total of 806 people have been hospitalised with the Delta variant, an increase of 423 since last week. Of these, 527 were unvaccinated, and only 84 of the 806 had received both doses." but that refers only to delta variant... So 806 hospitalised... 527 with no jab... 195 with 1 jab...84 with 2 jabs It doesn't seem to break anything down by age group or I can find it... " Not going to word this well as the mental gymnastics involved will take too long... What we need to know is whether that 527 unjabbed is reflective of age groups who haven’t been able to be jabbed and how different that figure would be if nobody had been jabbed (and how that would break down) Ie has the profile changed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it? "I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it?
I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on "Blame the parents. They lead by example! A lot of the current group of parents with teens grew up during the Thatcher years. They are part of the “me first” generation. Not all. But a lot! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
May I ask what today's announcement is?"They have opened up the vaccine to a massive group of younger people, because of the high rate of infection amongst this age group,sorry it's been all over the news so didn't feel the need to point it out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
May I ask what today's announcement is?
They have opened up the vaccine to a massive group of younger people, because of the high rate of infection amongst this age group,sorry it's been all over the news so didn't feel the need to point it out "Because they are the last age group to be offered it. Its not their choice to be left till last. Its govt policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks " https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26#health If you scroll down there are some graphs that show new cases by age group. I had found a study showing the effectiveness of the vaccines against the delta variant and hospitalisations but I seem to have lost it. I'll keep looking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it?
I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on "Maybe in your area. I'll defend the youngsters around here all day long. They've been good. They've stacked shelves and served me in supermarkets and petrol stations... They've had uni years wasted. They've been treated shamefully. And Im really proud of my two and in fact everyone of them that I know personally and at a distance. Some of the older lot could learn a lot from them. That's been my experience. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently with regards to the Delta variant, one jab reduces chances of hospitalisations by 75% according to latest figures. That’s fairly impressive in my humble opinion." After 3 weeks. In the first 3 weeks it increases your chance of infection. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
May I ask what today's announcement is?
They have opened up the vaccine to a massive group of younger people, because of the high rate of infection amongst this age group,sorry it's been all over the news so didn't feel the need to point it out "That was announced back on Monday and was always going to happen, they've been moving down the age groups each week anyway. They've slightly accelerated the date by which they wanted everyone over 18 to be offered a first vaccine by two weeks, hence the announcement on Monday that they'd open up the appointments. I volunteer in the vaccine clinics as a vaccinator and I can confirm younger people have been clamouring for vaccines since March. We've had people in their 20s and teens coming to try and get leftover doses, some queuing for several hours to do so. The fact is this variant is highly infectious, young people attended school, college and university where social distancing is not a requirement in classrooms. Hence they catch it more than older age groups (and these groups are more likely to already be at least single vaccinated, if not double). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks Public health England has stated similar, would think the Dara is on their website.. As to whether some will believe it, that's another thing.. I found this on gov website... "According to PHE’s latest variant technical briefing, as of 14 June, a total of 806 people have been hospitalised with the Delta variant, an increase of 423 since last week. Of these, 527 were unvaccinated, and only 84 of the 806 had received both doses." but that refers only to delta variant... So 806 hospitalised... 527 with no jab... 195 with 1 jab...84 with 2 jabs It doesn't seem to break anything down by age group or I can find it... Sounds the same as the press releases, tbh not sure how you can find out anything more detailed.. ONS perhaps in due course?" No I'm just intrigued because there's a lot of people on threads here repeating information from the media that it is mostly youngsters... I'm intrigued to know if there is anything that backs up this claim or if it is just a little nugget to encourage people to get jabbed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it?
I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on
Maybe in your area. I'll defend the youngsters around here all day long. They've been good. They've stacked shelves and served me in supermarkets and petrol stations... They've had uni years wasted. They've been treated shamefully. And Im really proud of my two and in fact everyone of them that I know personally and at a distance. Some of the older lot could learn a lot from them. That's been my experience. "Thank you. Sick of the shaming of young people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks Public health England has stated similar, would think the Dara is on their website.. As to whether some will believe it, that's another thing.. I found this on gov website... "According to PHE’s latest variant technical briefing, as of 14 June, a total of 806 people have been hospitalised with the Delta variant, an increase of 423 since last week. Of these, 527 were unvaccinated, and only 84 of the 806 had received both doses." but that refers only to delta variant... So 806 hospitalised... 527 with no jab... 195 with 1 jab...84 with 2 jabs It doesn't seem to break anything down by age group or I can find it... Sounds the same as the press releases, tbh not sure how you can find out anything more detailed.. ONS perhaps in due course? No I'm just intrigued because there's a lot of people on threads here repeating information from the media that it is mostly youngsters... I'm intrigued to know if there is anything that backs up this claim or if it is just a little nugget to encourage people to get jabbed. " I shared a link showing ONS data showing the new cases by age group. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it?
I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on
Maybe in your area. I'll defend the youngsters around here all day long. They've been good. They've stacked shelves and served me in supermarkets and petrol stations... They've had uni years wasted. They've been treated shamefully. And Im really proud of my two and in fact everyone of them that I know personally and at a distance. Some of the older lot could learn a lot from them. That's been my experience. "Of corse I have seen that aswell, but we live opposite a park and you would not believe how it looks no different out there today as it did before covid came along I can only speak as I see it everyday, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26#health If you scroll down there are some graphs that show new cases by age group. I had found a study showing the effectiveness of the vaccines against the delta variant and hospitalisations but I seem to have lost it. I'll keep looking. " Thanks... That's an interesting document but I can't find head not tail in it that shows infections by age group. I can see the graphs that are estimates of percentage of population... Never the less I found this quote in it which backs up my earlier post and is rather interesting and Im not sure is general knowledge.... "The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it?
I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on
Maybe in your area. I'll defend the youngsters around here all day long. They've been good. They've stacked shelves and served me in supermarkets and petrol stations... They've had uni years wasted. They've been treated shamefully. And Im really proud of my two and in fact everyone of them that I know personally and at a distance. Some of the older lot could learn a lot from them. That's been my experience.
Of corse I have seen that aswell, but we live opposite a park and you would not believe how it looks no different out there today as it did before covid came along I can only speak as I see it everyday, "Of course, but I'm far from Convinced that they are the only demographic that have not followed social distancing, gathering and masking guidelines. Again in my experience the ones not masking and not adhering to social distancing and having house parties are the older ones... (not many 18 year olds have houses to have parties in) and not isolating when infected. My experiences of under 21s in the same circumstances is they do care because they want to get on with their lives so are sticking hard to the rules. The point I guess is... One size does not fit all in all areas of the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26#health If you scroll down there are some graphs that show new cases by age group. I had found a study showing the effectiveness of the vaccines against the delta variant and hospitalisations but I seem to have lost it. I'll keep looking. Thanks... That's an interesting document but I can't find head not tail in it that shows infections by age group. I can see the graphs that are estimates of percentage of population... Never the less I found this quote in it which backs up my earlier post and is rather interesting and Im not sure is general knowledge.... "The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time."" Just scroll down a little bit and it shows graphs of which she groups infections have increased. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the vaccine is not as good as they say? What makes you think that? Obviously the thread topic? It's pretty simple, a much more transmissible variant and many younger people completely unvaccinated. The majority of cases are now in the younger ages, those who haven't yet been offered a vaccine. In hospitals, the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated, the data speaks for itself. Do you have a link to the data that shows that the majority of covid cases are unvaccinated and the age demographic of new infections. ... The data... I've been trying to find that info but haven't been able to? Thanks https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26#health If you scroll down there are some graphs that show new cases by age group. I had found a study showing the effectiveness of the vaccines against the delta variant and hospitalisations but I seem to have lost it. I'll keep looking. Thanks... That's an interesting document but I can't find head not tail in it that shows infections by age group. I can see the graphs that are estimates of percentage of population... Never the less I found this quote in it which backs up my earlier post and is rather interesting and Im not sure is general knowledge.... "The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." Just scroll down a little bit and it shows graphs of which she groups infections have increased. " Age, not she | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it?
I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on
Maybe in your area. I'll defend the youngsters around here all day long. They've been good. They've stacked shelves and served me in supermarkets and petrol stations... They've had uni years wasted. They've been treated shamefully. And Im really proud of my two and in fact everyone of them that I know personally and at a distance. Some of the older lot could learn a lot from them. That's been my experience.
Of corse I have seen that aswell, but we live opposite a park and you would not believe how it looks no different out there today as it did before covid came along I can only speak as I see it everyday,
Of course, but I'm far from Convinced that they are the only demographic that have not followed social distancing, gathering and masking guidelines. Again in my experience the ones not masking and not adhering to social distancing and having house parties are the older ones... (not many 18 year olds have houses to have parties in) and not isolating when infected. My experiences of under 21s in the same circumstances is they do care because they want to get on with their lives so are sticking hard to the rules. The point I guess is... One size does not fit all in all areas of the country. "Once again you are putting words into my mouth, I have never once seid they are the only demographic not following rules or that young people are not wanting vaccinations, just that I see lots of them and the figures show an increase in numbers  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently with regards to the Delta variant, one jab reduces chances of hospitalisations by 75% according to latest figures. That’s fairly impressive in my humble opinion. After 3 weeks. In the first 3 weeks it increases your chance of infection. " I think you have read that wrong. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t increase your chances of catching the virus. You are most susceptible to catching the virus in the first 3 weeks after the jab (the same as if you hadn’t had the jab). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it?
I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on
Maybe in your area. I'll defend the youngsters around here all day long. They've been good. They've stacked shelves and served me in supermarkets and petrol stations... They've had uni years wasted. They've been treated shamefully. And Im really proud of my two and in fact everyone of them that I know personally and at a distance. Some of the older lot could learn a lot from them. That's been my experience.
Of corse I have seen that aswell, but we live opposite a park and you would not believe how it looks no different out there today as it did before covid came along I can only speak as I see it everyday,
Of course, but I'm far from Convinced that they are the only demographic that have not followed social distancing, gathering and masking guidelines. Again in my experience the ones not masking and not adhering to social distancing and having house parties are the older ones... (not many 18 year olds have houses to have parties in) and not isolating when infected. My experiences of under 21s in the same circumstances is they do care because they want to get on with their lives so are sticking hard to the rules. The point I guess is... One size does not fit all in all areas of the country.
Once again you are putting words into my mouth, I have never once seid they are the only demographic not following rules or that young people are not wanting vaccinations, just that I see lots of them and the figures show an increase in numbers "OK... It was just they were the only age group you mentioned in your response... My bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently with regards to the Delta variant, one jab reduces chances of hospitalisations by 75% according to latest figures. That’s fairly impressive in my humble opinion. After 3 weeks. In the first 3 weeks it increases your chance of infection. I think you have read that wrong. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t increase your chances of catching the virus. You are most susceptible to catching the virus in the first 3 weeks after the jab (the same as if you hadn’t had the jab)." And the likely reason is that people think they're invincible immediately after the jab, so immediately let down their guard before it's had a chance to actually work. I think the mechanism here is behavioural and not medical. Lots of people ask in the clinic "can I now do XYZ" after we've jabbed them and the answer is NO! Follow the rules still! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently with regards to the Delta variant, one jab reduces chances of hospitalisations by 75% according to latest figures. That’s fairly impressive in my humble opinion. After 3 weeks. In the first 3 weeks it increases your chance of infection. " I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. Your no more likely to catch it after first having the vaccine... and after 2 weeks from your first dose your already less likely to catch covid. I think initially the problem was with people going out and thinking one vaccine meant no need to social distance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The spread of the delta variant. You can catch it a lot easier than the alpha variant. " Looks like it is more transmissible but not as dangerous - although that might be being mitigated by the fact that a higher proportion of those catching it are within the unvaccinated age groups (to date) who happen to also be those less likely to develop serious symptoms anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The spread of the delta variant. You can catch it a lot easier than the alpha variant. Looks like it is more transmissible but not as dangerous - although that might be being mitigated by the fact that a higher proportion of those catching it are within the unvaccinated age groups (to date) who happen to also be those less likely to develop serious symptoms anyway."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question for out covid experts... We have a marvellous vaccine program with many more vaccinated than our EU friends.. And yet..UK and Portugal rates are increasing rapidly... And Italy Spain Germany Belgium rates are decreasing? What are they doing right that we aren't? Ask them. Helpful... But my contacts with EU governments aren't returning my calls" thats wha we get for Brexiting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently with regards to the Delta variant, one jab reduces chances of hospitalisations by 75% according to latest figures. That’s fairly impressive in my humble opinion. After 3 weeks. In the first 3 weeks it increases your chance of infection. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. Your no more likely to catch it after first having the vaccine... and after 2 weeks from your first dose your already less likely to catch covid. I think initially the problem was with people going out and thinking one vaccine meant no need to social distance " It's on the gov website ... As quoted above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A question for out covid experts... We have a marvellous vaccine program with many more vaccinated than our EU friends.. And yet..UK and Portugal rates are increasing rapidly... And Italy Spain Germany Belgium rates are decreasing? What are they doing right that we aren't? Ask them. Helpful... But my contacts with EU governments aren't returning my calls thats wha we get for Brexiting" Well in fairness my contacts with EU governments didn't return my calls before brexit either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time."" I think that just means that even after vaccine they are still at risk equal to before the vaccine for a certain time then it decreases. I don't think they mean that the vaccine makes you more likely to catch covid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time."" This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful." There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents." The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. " Apparently not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not." On what basis can you say that? How do Covid infections get into care homes if the residents are not leaving? It doesn't blow in over the garden wall and pervade the conservatory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because it's all a load of utter bollocks. Simples! " The earth's flat too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that?" Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. " What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? How have they proven behaviour doesn't change in people after the vaccine? People are rubbish at reporting things from memory accurately and I have seen plenty of examples in the clinic of people thinking having had the vaccine, they can plough on and do whatever they want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? How have they proven behaviour doesn't change in people after the vaccine? People are rubbish at reporting things from memory accurately and I have seen plenty of examples in the clinic of people thinking having had the vaccine, they can plough on and do whatever they want. " Like a lot of the "data" and "stats" it begs more questions than it answers and we should be cautious about making assumptions about "why". It could very well be behavioural but equally it might not be. I imagine some of these published data views are presented in such a way to be deliberately obtuse or obfuscate in some cases to hide unpopular conclusions and sentiments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? How have they proven behaviour doesn't change in people after the vaccine? People are rubbish at reporting things from memory accurately and I have seen plenty of examples in the clinic of people thinking having had the vaccine, they can plough on and do whatever they want. Like a lot of the "data" and "stats" it begs more questions than it answers and we should be cautious about making assumptions about "why". It could very well be behavioural but equally it might not be. I imagine some of these published data views are presented in such a way to be deliberately obtuse or obfuscate in some cases to hide unpopular conclusions and sentiments. " Indeed so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? " A latent virus has nothing to do with the viral content of a vaccine (or lack thereof). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? A latent virus has nothing to do with the viral content of a vaccine (or lack thereof)." Latent viral infection is a result of the integration of viral DNA into the host genome. mRNA for the single spike protein gene does not integrate. The whole SARS-CoV-2 genome can be reverse transcribed, but no vaccine uses the whole genome. Although reverse transcription has been shown in a lab setting, the virus itself lacks a gene for RT. So, how would a viral genome integrate and cause latent viral infection in the absence of a genome and the enzyme to synthesise DNA? RNA cannot integrate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? A latent virus has nothing to do with the viral content of a vaccine (or lack thereof). Latent viral infection is a result of the integration of viral DNA into the host genome." Not necessarily, there are other mechanisms apparently, and there is some debate about what this virus can and cannot do anyway. It's not my hypothesis - as I said, my money is on suppression of immunity post vaccination. There are sharp rises in Covid deaths with vaccine rollouts in multiple countries, I await the conclusions on why with interest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? A latent virus has nothing to do with the viral content of a vaccine (or lack thereof). Latent viral infection is a result of the integration of viral DNA into the host genome. Not necessarily, there are other mechanisms apparently, and there is some debate about what this virus can and cannot do anyway. It's not my hypothesis - as I said, my money is on suppression of immunity post vaccination. There are sharp rises in Covid deaths with vaccine rollouts in multiple countries, I await the conclusions on why with interest." Which countries in particular? Also, if you're going to expound confidently on the science of something, do at least be prepared to try and explain it or share a link. These "other mechanisms" would make a good place to start. Just saying "apparently" does not make it so. I've explained how latent viral infection happens in reasonably basic scientific terms, so perhaps we could benefit from further information on the topic, which you are clearly furnished with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time."" you have read that totally wrong. As pointed out.. it means that your still at most risk of infection for the first 3 weeks after having the vaccination. Not that it increases your risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." you have read that totally wrong. As pointed out.. it means that your still at most risk of infection for the first 3 weeks after having the vaccination. Not that it increases your risk. " No.. It says plain as the nose on my face.. " In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline." The risk of infection INCREASED FOLLOWING FIRST VACCINATION" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." you have read that totally wrong. As pointed out.. it means that your still at most risk of infection for the first 3 weeks after having the vaccination. Not that it increases your risk. No.. It says plain as the nose on my face.. " In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline." The risk of infection INCREASED FOLLOWING FIRST VACCINATION" " I'd say you are reading it right after looking at it quickly. I havent really looked at data set properly or anything it's near 3am and sleepy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." you have read that totally wrong. As pointed out.. it means that your still at most risk of infection for the first 3 weeks after having the vaccination. Not that it increases your risk. No.. It says plain as the nose on my face.. " In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline." The risk of infection INCREASED FOLLOWING FIRST VACCINATION" " I’m sure our resident Fab experts will be along at some point to explain with proper terminology but here’s my supposition (in plain English)... Vaccines use a small (inactivated?) part of the virus to stimulate the bodies defence mechanisms to recognise the threat and learn how to tackle it. But during those first few weeks the body is extra vulnerable due to being in learning mode and may even be slightly compromised. If that is correct then once again that represents another monumental Govt (and Pharma) fail as people should be expressly warned about this and take extra precautions for 3-4 weeks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The risk of infection increased in the first three weeks, there's no suggested mechanism (biological/medical vs behavioural, as already discussed). We DO tell people it takes 3-4 weeks to mount an immune response and they should continue to follow all the rules on social contact etc. Plenty of people look surprised when we answer their question and say it takes 3-4wks to respond. I have no evidence (because I don't go around tracking vaccinated people), but I suspect some people start throwing caution to the wind once they've had one vaccine (a half dose). I've seen it in work colleagues, who'd not visited relatives for a year, but were back in relative's houses quite literally the day after their first vaccine. Obviously I don't know if they practised social distancing etc. " There's one born every minute. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The risk of infection increased in the first three weeks, there's no suggested mechanism (biological/medical vs behavioural, as already discussed). We DO tell people it takes 3-4 weeks to mount an immune response and they should continue to follow all the rules on social contact etc. Plenty of people look surprised when we answer their question and say it takes 3-4wks to respond. I have no evidence (because I don't go around tracking vaccinated people), but I suspect some people start throwing caution to the wind once they've had one vaccine (a half dose). I've seen it in work colleagues, who'd not visited relatives for a year, but were back in relative's houses quite literally the day after their first vaccine. Obviously I don't know if they practised social distancing etc. There's one born every minute. " I hope you mean the general public there? There is a distinct lack of basic biological knowledge amongst the public, yes. So it's great to be able to answer their questions and give accurate information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Possibly a more important statistic is the test positivity percentage rate. Spain 4.3 Germany 3.1 Italy 1.3 UK 0.7 Prior to the delta variant our rate was 0.2." That's a pretty broad range for free travel!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The risk of infection increased in the first three weeks, there's no suggested mechanism (biological/medical vs behavioural, as already discussed). We DO tell people it takes 3-4 weeks to mount an immune response and they should continue to follow all the rules on social contact etc. Plenty of people look surprised when we answer their question and say it takes 3-4wks to respond. I have no evidence (because I don't go around tracking vaccinated people), but I suspect some people start throwing caution to the wind once they've had one vaccine (a half dose). I've seen it in work colleagues, who'd not visited relatives for a year, but were back in relative's houses quite literally the day after their first vaccine. Obviously I don't know if they practised social distancing etc. There's one born every minute. I hope you mean the general public there? " I mean stupid people - or people who do stupid things, the difference is a moot point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? A latent virus has nothing to do with the viral content of a vaccine (or lack thereof). Latent viral infection is a result of the integration of viral DNA into the host genome. Not necessarily, there are other mechanisms apparently, and there is some debate about what this virus can and cannot do anyway. It's not my hypothesis - as I said, my money is on suppression of immunity post vaccination. There are sharp rises in Covid deaths with vaccine rollouts in multiple countries, I await the conclusions on why with interest. Which countries in particular? Also, if you're going to expound confidently on the science of something, do at least be prepared to try and explain it or share a link. " The problem with fab is you cannot share links or graphics, and nor do I keep links to the hundreds of presentations I see, sorry. There's a clear pattern repeated in many countries - large spikes in deaths coinciding with vaccine rollouts, no conclusive explanation, just lots of theories. I'm sure if you search international comparisons you'll find some data. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So once again from the gov website just so I'm not talking shite.. (unusually) ""The risk of coronavirus infection after vaccination is highest during the first 21 days then decreases 17 June 2021 Among adult participants in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, the risk of new infection after a first vaccination is highest during the 21 days following their jab, but then it strongly decreases. In unadjusted analyses, the risk of infection increased following first vaccination, peaking at around 16 days, followed by a strong decrease to around one month, with a slow but continuous decline. Adult participants aged under 40 years had an increased risk of positivity post vaccination than older age groups. Those working in patient-facing healthcare roles and in care homes, living in larger households, or in areas of greater deprivation also had higher rates of positivity following vaccination. The analyses apply only to participants in the survey and have not been adjusted to be representative of the population or infection rates at the time." This doesn't state of the reason is medical or social/behavioural. That would be helpful. There are quite a lot of cases where behaviour and routine did not change eg nursing home residents. The behaviour of the staff may have changed, for example, if they believe the residents are at lower risk immediately after the vaccination, staff may inadvertently take less care in their infection control measures in the residential setting or may change their own personal behaviour to be less cautious. Apparently not. On what basis can you say that? Investigations that showed there was no change in behaviour. I assumed a suppression of immunity, but apparently there are other theories, such as viral latency. What would latent virus have anything to do with vaccines that don't contain whole SARS-CoV-2 (or in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna, no virus at all)? A latent virus has nothing to do with the viral content of a vaccine (or lack thereof). Latent viral infection is a result of the integration of viral DNA into the host genome. Not necessarily, there are other mechanisms apparently, and there is some debate about what this virus can and cannot do anyway. It's not my hypothesis - as I said, my money is on suppression of immunity post vaccination. There are sharp rises in Covid deaths with vaccine rollouts in multiple countries, I await the conclusions on why with interest. Which countries in particular? Also, if you're going to expound confidently on the science of something, do at least be prepared to try and explain it or share a link. The problem with fab is you cannot share links or graphics, and nor do I keep links to the hundreds of presentations I see, sorry. There's a clear pattern repeated in many countries - large spikes in deaths coinciding with vaccine rollouts, no conclusive explanation, just lots of theories. I'm sure if you search international comparisons you'll find some data. " I cannot find anything remotely reputable or scientifically valid to show that any country that has rolled out vaccines widely has experienced a sudden spike in deaths. In the UK, deaths as a whole have decreased in the past few months to below the five year average. Deaths mentioning COVID seem to be bobbling up and down week to week, but are significantly lower than in January and February (peak in Jan was about 1,600 in a single day, vs around 10 a day in late May). From the ONS: The number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 4 June 2021 was 9,111, which was 348 fewer than the five-year average; of deaths registered in the UK in Week 22, 108 involved COVID-19, that is, 2 more than in Week 21. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending4june2021#main-points | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because there younger people are not so self entitled as ours and can follow the simple rules that have been put in place, hence today's announcement
Well that's not fair at all. Our youngsters have only been able to book a jab for 11 hours. Bit unfair to have a go at them for not having a jab that they've been unable to get. Isn't it?
I'm not having a go at them for not having a jab, I'm saying they haven't followed the rules set out, we live in a hight covid infection area, yet still big groops of young people gathering all over the place like nothing is going on
Maybe in your area. I'll defend the youngsters around here all day long. They've been good. They've stacked shelves and served me in supermarkets and petrol stations... They've had uni years wasted. They've been treated shamefully. And Im really proud of my two and in fact everyone of them that I know personally and at a distance. Some of the older lot could learn a lot from them. That's been my experience.
Thank you. Sick of the shaming of young people."Agreed Like every sector of society there are the good and the bad. Only have to read a handful of posts on here to find plenty of highly shameful older people  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
