Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

wadacrack wrote: »

Germany not recommending AstraZeneca for people over 65 . Broad statements like this are just nor true

That’s due to concerns over efficacy rather than safety. Those concerns are largely based on lack of date rather than strong evidence that it is not efficacious for that age.

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1355205916845551622

What do you expect when you tell people to stay at home!

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1355205916845551622

that reads to me like people are getting it in workplaces and bringing it home.

Do today's numbers include testing of close contacts ?

What happens to fines collected by guards?

ruth123456 wrote: »

What happens to fines collected by guards?

Paying for FF and FG PR

ruth123456 wrote: »

What happens to fines collected by guards?

They use it to buy dance shoes.

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

Sorry, what I meant was that there does not seem to be sufficient clarity on whether the vaccine 'sterilises' the virus so as to make it non-transferable. Poor choice of words maybe.

Otherwise I think your post, set in those terms, would do a good job of arguing the case for mass uptake, supposing that some of the finer points regarding the efficacy or risk factor (if any) of the vaccine were addressed by the government with a bit more resourcefulness. After all, at the end of the day you are asking people to be injected with a foreign substance for which there are no long term studies.

Yes. I see now what your intent was with the use of the word sterlisation. I have heard so many discuss the issue of fertility as a reason not to take the vaccine that I misunderstood your meaning.

You are correct that the vaccine has not eliminated infection or sterilised the nasal passages to completely stop those vaccinated from carrying the virus. It has however reduced symptoms and there is some data to suggest that although those who are asymptomatic can still infect others that they do so at a lower rate. At a very simple level, if coughing less that might be helpful in reducing spread. Those who have more serious infections may have a higher viral load so those who are vaccinated may transmit less.

Of course, it could be the case that those vaccinated don’t have symptoms so they don’t know they have the disease so they are less likely to isolate so transmission is increased. It will become clearer as time passes but in the meantime, maintaining social distance and mask wearing as much as possible should still be done.

Maybe wishful thinking, but I remain hopeful based on the early results from initial studies and from Israel that vaccines will reduce transmission even if they don’t eliminate it entirely.

Big rise in Wexford following 200 at a funeral last week no masks or social distance

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is the AstraZeneca vaccine not a bit sh*t?

Nobody that took it in the trials ended up in hospital, it's an excellent option despite the sensationalist twitter/tabloid waffle

Tony being somewhat positive on RTE *shocked*

El Sueño wrote: »

Nobody that took it in the trials ended up in hospital, it's an excellent option despite the sensationalist twitter/tabloid waffle

The trials weren't on older people (i.e., those most susceptible to the disease) though, right?

Without sounding dramatic... Good Christ just watched this, they are talking about maybe no Xmas this year and its still Jan?!?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4okLi-ShMHc

Smokers have been thrown under the bus. Disgraceful.