nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The UK response - Part II - read OP

Beasty

A continuation from this thread

As usual please remain civil. As warned in the first thread this is not an excuse for Brit-bashing

Active threadbans:

splinter65
Declanflynn
blinding

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

robinph

S.M.B. wrote: »

I have yet to take one of these tests as I don't have much confidence in the results. Is anyone in the UK doing so twice per week or as recommended?

Not doing the twice weekly as I'm not doing that to the 5 year old that often. But we have done tests prior to meeting with others in certain situations.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

I’m not sure if you get this

Lateral flow tests aren’t accurate. The very nature of them makes them unreliable. Oxford university, Porton Down and PHE assessed fifty different tests, only two made it past initial tests.

It isn’t as simple as “ditch innovation and use another” because the next one is likely to be just as inaccurate.

Look, they ran trials of this Innova test in Liverpool and Birmingham last year and the results were dreadful. Up to 60% false positives as reported in the telegraph and elsewhere tallies with what was recorded in Liverpool so the emerging statistics are merely confirming what was hinted at initially and what scientists were warning against. So at what point does unreliability of these tests make them more of a hindrance than a benefit? And nobody ever said LFTs were 100% reliable so stop with the strawman, but some will quite obviously be more accurate than others so quite why they have to continue with this outfit, given what we have learned about them over the past year, just seems bizarre to me. Expect to see them issued another juicy contract extension any day now, if not already happened!

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

Before you start hanging your hat on that website, you might want to check out their other articles, such as “Why BA refuse to deny pilots died from Covid jab” or the one by the same author claiming PCR testing is a scandal, Sage are part of a mass behavioral experiment and why her child should not wear a face mask.

It’s a loopers website to be honest.

She's definitely no Peter Oborne, I'll grant you that. It's only really the trail and outline of the innova/China story I'm interested in and she at least sources it fairly well from what i can see.

[Deleted User]

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Look, they ran trials of this Innova test in Liverpool and Birmingham last year and the results were dreadful. Up to 60% false positives as reported in the telegraph and elsewhere tallies with what was recorded in Liverpool so the emerging statistics are merely confirming what was hinted at initially and what scientists were warning against. So at what point does unreliability of these tests make them more of a hindrance than a benefit? And nobody ever said LFTs were 100% reliable so stop with the strawman, but some will quite obviously be more accurate than others so quite why they have to continue with this outfit, given what we have learned about them over the past year, just seems bizarre to me. Expect to see them issued another juicy contract extension any day now, if not already happened!

But that’s the thing, none of them have been proven to be reliable, they are just another tool in the box and they have to be treated that way. If you look at what is being used across Europe, there is a whole assortment, all of which seem to originate from somewhere in China.

The thing is, there is no other way of getting a fast indication, so they are being used for indicative purposes only. It’s not ideal, but the view is that it is better than nothing.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

But that’s the thing, none of them have been proven to be reliable, they are just another tool in the box and they have to be treated that way. If you look at what is being used across Europe, there is a whole assortment, all of which seem to originate from somewhere in China.

The thing is, there is no other way of getting a fast indication, so they are being used for indicative purposes only. It’s not ideal, but the view is that it is better than nothing.

This post was reminding me of something and couldn't think what, but then it came to me - Dido "Silver Bullet" Harding and her defence of her rotten test and trace performance by blaming her critics and their infernal negativity for having too high expectations. What do these people think you get for the relative pittance of 30 or 40 billion or whatever (who's even counting anymore)? We seem to think all this is a silver bullet when the smart people like Dido understand that all you can really expect for your billions is "better than nothing." Would work as a decent snappy slogan for current regime, mind.

So I guess the fact Innova were making extravagant claims about the accuracy of their test and only a while ago hancock was dismissing the chances of false positives is neither here nor there. Problem is with people having too high expectations and they really ought to have learned their lesson by now, quite frankly.

Louche Lad

Funny
https://www.indy100.com/news/covid-denier-queen-of-hearts-runcorn-b1873289

Timberrrrrrrr

Louche Lad wrote: »

Funny
https://www.indy100.com/news/covid-denier-queen-of-hearts-runcorn-b1873289

Runcorn lol

It's known over here as "The village of the damned" so yeah, this doesn't surprise me at all :pac:

RobMc59

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Runcorn lol

It's known over here as "The village of the damned" so yeah, this doesn't surprise me at all :pac:

Didn't people from Runcorn sneak into the gene pool when the lifeguard wasn't looking?

MadYaker

I don't know where to find proper figures for the UK. Delta variant is increasing rapidly there, are hospitalisations following suit?

gmisk

That is one huge jump in case numbers in Scotland (biggest daily numbers since pandemic began...almost 4k in last 24 hours)
All that partying after drawing with England...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/covid-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-accused-of-messaging-failure-as-2000-cases-linked-to-euros-3292169

MadYaker

Ye it doesn't look good alright, you'd have to assume most of the people presenting at A&E are vaccinated https://www.scotsman.com/health/covid-scotland-health-boards-warn-of-extreme-pressures-as-staff-self-isolate-3292037

Peregrinus

MadYaker wrote: »

Ye it doesn't look good alright, you'd have to assume most of the people presenting at A&E are vaccinated https://www.scotsman.com/health/covid-scotland-health-boards-warn-of-extreme-pressures-as-staff-self-isolate-3292037

No, you wouldn't. Vaccination is proceeding very well in the UK, but they still have less than half the population fully vaccinated and younger peole are much less likely to be vaccinated than older people. Younger people are also more likely to have gone to pubs, clubs etc to watch football games or to celebrate afterwards.

Having said that, I believe there is some evidence that at least some of the vaccines are less effective against the Delta variant than they have been against other variants. So it may be that vaccination greatly reduces your chances of infection, but still leaves you with a significant chance of becoming infected.

PommieBast

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, you wouldn't. Vaccination is proceeding very well in the UK, but they still have less than half the population fully vaccinated and younger peole are much less likely to be vaccinated than older people.

From what I hear from relatives London has a major problem with below-average vaccine uptake, to the point that some places will jab people even if they refuse to give any form of identity or immigration status.

Having said that, I believe there is some evidence that at least some of the vaccines are less effective against the Delta variant than they have been against other variants. So it may be that vaccination greatly reduces your chances of infection, but still leaves you with a significant chance of becoming infected.

My understanding is that the 90-something-percent figure mentioned of vaccines is the probability that an infection won't do you any real harm. It doesn't make your entire body kryptonie to the virus.

Peregrinus

PommieBast wrote: »

From what I hear from relatives London has a major problem with below-average vaccine uptake, to the point that some places will jab people even if they refuse to give any form of identity or immigration status.

Why would you need to demonstrate identity or immigration status to be vaccinated? Surely the policy is to promote universal vaccination in the community? The risk of infection/transmission you present doesn't depend in any way on your name or migration status.

PommieBast wrote: »

My understanding is that the 90-something-percent figure mentioned of vaccines is the probability that an infection won't do you any real harm. It doesn't make your entire body kryptonie to the virus.

As I understand it, when a vaccine is "90% effective" that means that it avoids 90% of the transmission that would otherwise happen. So if, in an unvaccinated population, you expect 1,000 infections, in a vaccinated but otherwise similar population you'd expect 100 infections.

The vaccine may also reduce the severity of the disease in those who do contract it, but (a) that's not what the 90% figure signifies, and (b) I don't know how much data we have on to what extent various Covid vaccines do this. From a public health point of view its a secondary concern, since even if you are only mildly affected by the disease yourself this may do nothing to reduce your transmission of the disease to other (indeed, it may increase it, if it means you're out and about rather than at home in bed), and the main goal of vaccination is to prevent transmission in the community.

Also worth pointing out that a vaccine may be X% effective against this variant of the vaccine, but Y% effective against that variant.

Lumen

Peregrinus wrote: »

As I understand it, when a vaccine is "90% effective" that means that it avoids 90% of the transmission that would otherwise happen. So if, in an unvaccinated population, you expect 1,000 infections, in a vaccinated but otherwise similar population you'd expect 100 infections

I don't think this is right, otherwise only 100% effective vaccines would be able to induce herd immunity (ignoring immunity acquired by infection).

Effectiveness is measured within a single population by comparing outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-difference-between-efficacy-and-effectiveness

Peregrinus

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think this is right, otherwise only 100% effective vaccines would be able to induce herd immunity (ignoring immunity acquired by infection).

I don't think so. "Herd immunity" does not mean "100% immunity"; it just means a sufficient degree of immunity in the community that even those who are not immune are relatively unlikely to meet with someone infected, and so are substantially protected by the immunity of others.

Lumen wrote: »

Effectiveness is measured within a single population by comparing outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-difference-between-efficacy-and-effectiveness

OK, this clarifies things. But I think perhaps that the "90%" and similar figures that have been quoted for various vaccines are in fact measures of efficacy, rather than of effectiveness.

Lumen

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think so. "Herd immunity" does not mean "100% immunity"; it just means a sufficient degree of immunity in the community that even those who are not immune are relatively unlikely to meet with someone infected, and so are substantially protected by the immunity of others.

Right, but I think your definition suggested otherwise, specifically:

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if, in an unvaccinated population, you expect 1,000 infections, in a vaccinated but otherwise similar population you'd expect 100 infections

Perhaps you meant "cohort" or "sub-population". I'm not trying to be argumentative, just clear.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I think perhaps that the "90%" and similar figures that have been quoted for various vaccines are in fact measures of efficacy, rather than of effectiveness.

I think these numbers are fairly useless for public health advice. I have problems reasoning about them, and I have a higher level of technical education than many people (I'm still a moron).

It is better to talk about vaccines with stories. Like: if you're old, getting vaccinated gives you back the immune response you had 30* years ago; if you're young, getting vaccinated might stop this virus mutating into something much worse. Or whatever.

* I don't know whether this is strictly accurate.

Peregrinus

Lumen wrote: »

Right, but I think your definition suggested otherwise, specifically:

Perhaps you meant "cohort" or "sub-population". I'm not trying to be argumentative, just clear.

You are being both clear and correct. That is what I meant, and what I should have said.

Lumen wrote: »

I think these numbers are fairly useless for public health advice. I have problems reasoning about them, and I have a higher level of technical education than many people (I'm still a moron).

It is better to talk about vaccines with stories. Like: if you're old, getting vaccinated gives you back the immune response you had 30* years ago; if you're young, getting vaccinated might stop this virus mutating into something much worse. Or whatever.

* I don't know whether this is strictly accurate.

It's also terribly vague, since most of us have no way of quantifying what immune response we had 30 years ago. And telling me that getting vaccinated might stop mutations isn't much help, since it implies that it also might not.

But maybe vagueness is more honest - a more accurate representation our present state of knowledge about this. Perhaps honest imprecision is better than a false assurance of certainty.

brickster69

Young people stepping forward in a big way in the UK. 4.2 million had first shot just three weeks after the programme was opened to those in their twenties.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/06/nhs-covid-19-vaccination-programme-jabs-half-of-adults-under-30/

[Deleted User]

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't know where to find proper figures for the UK. Delta variant is increasing rapidly there, are hospitalisations following suit?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

brickster69

Aegir wrote: »

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Strange how everyone always mentions cases and never tests.

afatbollix

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't know where to find proper figures for the UK. Delta variant is increasing rapidly there, are hospitalisations following suit?

Case numbers are now at the peak they had in November when they went into Lockdown before Christmas. About 25,000 a day being reported.

Deaths were about 450 a day in November. Today with the same amount of cases they are having about 10 to 15 deaths a day.

Hospitals around that time had 17,000 people in them. Today it is 1,700.

Wolf359f

afatbollix wrote: »

Case numbers are now at the peak they had in November when they went into Lockdown before Christmas. About 25,000 a day being reported.

Deaths were about 450 a day in November. Today with the same amount of cases they are having about 10 to 15 deaths a day.

Hospitals around that time had 17,000 people in them. Today it is 1,700.

November was a little out of control and started from a high base.

7 day rolling averages (4 October 2020/22 June 2021)
Cases: (13000/12930)
Admissions: (606/232)
Hospital Patients: (3163/1469)
Deaths: (53/16)
ICU Patients: (384/237)
PCR %: (4.89/3.84)

PommieBast

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would you need to demonstrate identity or immigration status to be vaccinated? Surely the policy is to promote universal vaccination in the community? The risk of infection/transmission you present doesn't depend in any way on your name or migration status.

Having had jabs in both the UK and in Ireland, the checking of id that the Irish are doing ("If you do not bring photo ID, you cannot enter the vaccination centre") stood out like a sore thumb to me. I think this is a major mistake in the making.

Keep in mind that the hostile enviornment in the UK never went away, and Chinese friends of mine in London tell me that distrust of what the government does (even with medical data) is a major cause of vaccine hesitancy. That's why they setup that place in Chinatown where they do not record any details.

Peregrinus

PommieBast wrote: »

Having had jabs in both the UK and in Ireland, the checking of id that the Irish are doing ("If you do not bring photo ID, you cannot enter the vaccination centre") stood out like a sore thumb to me. I think this is a major mistake in the making.

Keep in mind that the hostile enviornment in the UK never went away, and Chinese friends of mine in London tell me that distrust of what the government does (even with medical data) is a major cause of vaccine hesitancy. That's why they setup that place in Chinatown where they do not record any details.

I can see the point that if you're going to issue vaccine certificates or "vaccine passports" then you need to keep track of who it is that you are vaccinating, and when. (That's not a consideration, though, if your policy is not to treat vaccinated and unvaccinated people differently; in that case you don't need vaccine certificates. But not many countries seem to be going that way.)

There's also an issue with hypochondriacs and obsessives who will try to get repeatedly vaccinated, perhaps with different vaccines. There won't be many of them, but there will be some. That's a waste of vaccines, plus it may have advers medical consequences for them. I don't know in practice how big a concern that is, though.

But immigration status? Utterly, utterly irrelevant and very definitely something that should not be connected in any way with vaccination. Anybody who has any idea about making such a link should be rigorously excluded from having any influence at all over public health policy.

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus wrote: »

But immigration status? Utterly, utterly irrelevant and very definitely something that should not be connected in any way with vaccination. Anybody who has any idea about making such a link should be rigorously excluded from having any influence at all over public health policy.

no one has made the link, in fact the government has said many times that immigration status is not required and there will be no repercussions for people who register with a GP solely to get a vaccine.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/08/undocumented-uk-migrants-to-be-offered-covid-vaccine-without-any-checks

Lumen

The UK govt needs to sh!t or get off the pot as far as Delta is concerned.

The current approach of trying to flatten the curve with test+trace+isolate is creating enormous disruption in schools and workplaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm_9kx8vpWY

Fears of summer chaos in England’s schools and offices without Covid restrictions
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/03/fears-of-summer-chaos-in-schools-and-offices-as-covid-restrictions-are-swept-away

Dave0301

Lumen wrote: »

The UK govt needs to sh!t or get off the pot as far as Delta is concerned.

The current approach of trying to flatten the curve with test+trace+isolate is creating enormous disruption in schools and workplaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm_9kx8vpWY

Fears of summer chaos in England’s schools and offices without Covid restrictions
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/03/fears-of-summer-chaos-in-schools-and-offices-as-covid-restrictions-are-swept-away

I suspect that will come to an soon as well, and especially before September. You can't have over a quarter of a million kids out of education on a daily basis.

It is time to stop focusing on daily case numbers and only get worried if there is a big jump in hospital admissions, which hopefully there won't be.

Inquitus

PommieBast wrote: »

Having had jabs in both the UK and in Ireland, the checking of id that the Irish are doing ("If you do not bring photo ID, you cannot enter the vaccination centre") stood out like a sore thumb to me. I think this is a major mistake in the making.

This is no mistake, it is a vital step in any future vaccination control required for travel etc. etc. How can you provide a covid vaccination validation certificate for travel if you have no proof the person that turned up for the vaccination is the one now attempting to travel. You already have to provide your Name, Address, PPS # etc. for an appointment, all requiring photo ID at the vaccination center does is make sure noone is trying to cheat or game the system.

The UK also require similar details to book an appointment, this is how they stopped Irish people going to the North to try and get a vaccine when they weren't available here.

PommieBast

Inquitus wrote: »

The UK also require similar details to book an appointment, this is how they stopped Irish people going to the North to try and get a vaccine when they weren't available here.

All I can say is that the vaccination centre I went to in Hertfordshire didn't require any of it.

I was a bit surprised that the Irish jabbing centre were happy to add the details from my NHS appointment card to the system and list me as fully vaccinated.