Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[chris p bacon]

9 hours ago, Fenman said:

That doesn’t appear to be quite right: this report suggests that while the clotting risk from AZ is tiny, it is different (and worse) than the risk from Pfizer. 
 

Doubtless there’ll be more research and a clearer picture will emerge. 
 

Paul

 

Yes there is a difference between the vaccines,  but other serious adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine such as  Anaphylaxis were not turned into an issue (and rightly so)

 The scaremongering by Macron etc will harm more people in the developing world than will ever die in Europe.

[Pete the Elaner]

8 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Paul

 

I believe that Pfizer vaccine has other side effects. No medicine is 100% safe, most have side affects. The issue with the AZ vaccine was the way some countries jumped to conclusions prior to thorough investigations were concluded, which they have not done with other vaccines where side effects were also reported.

 

The chilling thing is now covid is now adversely affecting younger people more so than before, the risk of dying from covid  is still far greater than from vaccines. Clearly actions from some countries and politicians have needlessly fuelled the anti vaxers rhetoric  

 

There are the usual political issues here too:

 

I find it interesting that we refer to the AZ by the distributor & Pfizer by the lab. Surely they should be Oxford & Pfizer or AZ & Biontech?

I heard on the news that Biontech have gone from making a small loss in 2020 to an enormous profit this year.

AZ have always maintained that they do not make a profit (I believe they make something, but just a lesser profit than Biontech).

So who has more to gain from slurring the other? Both parties will make healthy profits this year & why shouldn't they? They are both making products which the world needs right now.

 

I am not suggesting that I am right or wrong, but there are usually elements of truth & fiction in any media story & what you read/hear depends partly on what the the information provider wants.

 

Pinch of salt required.

[Pete the Elaner]

8 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Paul

 

I believe that Pfizer vaccine has other side effects. No medicine is 100% safe, most have side affects. The issue with the AZ vaccine was the way some countries jumped to conclusions prior to thorough investigations were concluded, which they have not done with other vaccines where side effects were also reported.

 

The chilling thing is now covid is now adversely affecting younger people more so than before, the risk of dying from covid  is still far greater than from vaccines. Clearly actions from some countries and politicians have needlessly fuelled the anti vaxers rhetoric  

 

There are the usual political issues here too:

 

I find it interesting that we refer to the AZ by the distributor & Pfizer by the lab. Surely they should be Oxford & Pfizer or AZ & Biontech?

I heard on the news that Biontech have gone from making a small loss in 2020 to an enormous profit this year.

AZ have always maintained that they do not make a profit (I believe they make something, but just a lesser profit than Biontech).

So who has more to gain from slurring the other? Both parties will make healthy profits this year & why shouldn't they? They are both making products which the world needs right now.

 

I am not suggesting that I am right or wrong, but there are usually elements of truth & fiction in any media story & what you read/hear depends partly on what the the information provider wants.

 

Pinch of salt required.

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

There are the usual political issues here too:

 

I find it interesting that we refer to the AZ by the distributor & Pfizer by the lab. Surely they should be Oxford & Pfizer or AZ & Biontech?

I heard on the news that Biontech have gone from making a small loss in 2020 to an enormous profit this year.

AZ have always maintained that they do not make a profit (I believe they make something, but just a lesser profit than Biontech).

So who has more to gain from slurring the other? Both parties will make healthy profits this year & why shouldn't they? They are both making products which the world needs right now.

 

I am not suggesting that I am right or wrong, but there are usually elements of truth & fiction in any media story & what you read/hear depends partly on what the the information provider wants.

 

Pinch of salt required.

 

 

Its not been the actions of the media or companies against companies. Rightly governments should take all precautions (as they did and do during both trials and when in use, however several countries jumped the gun before the EMA commented plus there was a lot of politicking going on, initially to cover up failings in the EU's procurement failings which they later owned up to and two or more premiers seemingly up set for political reasons

 

Companies need to make profits, Astra Zeneca decided to wave its rights to large profits for the benefit of society, (plus no doubt a massive PR gain). Sadly I think AZ are regretting their gesture and next time round I doubt if they will be so generous  

 

[APOLLO]

Lets all hope and pray there is no next time round !!!

 

Brit15

[Neil]

An interesting point made on either C4 news or Newsnight last night (I forget which) about the low/slow take up of the vaccine by younger adults here in the UK. It was said by a chap from Sage that the earlier government message about Covid posing little risk to the young and that the risk/benefit of the vaccine was marginal was a significant factor. Obviously it was the correct decision to prioritise the elderly and those at enhanced risk, but it just shows how choice of words is important.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

An interesting point made on either C4 news or Newsnight last night (I forget which) about the low/slow take up of the vaccine by younger adults here in the UK. It was said by a chap from Sage that the earlier government message about Covid posing little risk to the young and that the risk/benefit of the vaccine was marginal was a significant factor. Obviously it was the correct decision to prioritise the elderly and those at enhanced risk, but it just shows how choice of words is important.

It looks like the Delta variant is having a more serious impact on younger patients than the earlier strains, and there's nothing like one of your mates being hospitalised (or worse) to focus the mind....

 

Round here, the 25-30 age-group seems to be the most reluctant/resistant for some reason.

 

John

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, Neil said:

An interesting point made on either C4 news or Newsnight last night (I forget which) about the low/slow take up of the vaccine by younger adults here in the UK. It was said by a chap from Sage that the earlier government message about Covid posing little risk to the young and that the risk/benefit of the vaccine was marginal was a significant factor. Obviously it was the correct decision to prioritise the elderly and those at enhanced risk, but it just shows how choice of words is important.

 

It reminds me of the earlier weeks in lockdown 1 when the government said that PPE did not help very much, then it later became known that there was a shortage.

Reading between the lines, this was because they wanted to provide PPE for those most in need of it instead of seeing another mad rush like there was for bog roll. Then when there was a sufficient supply of PPE, they announced that it did make a significant difference & some of the media (social & published) claimed they were 'confused' by the government's change of stance while others didn't want to listen to the new advice.

 

We all need to acknowledge that we are chasing a moving target. The virus has mutated several times so it is sensible to assume it will mutate again. Scientists are constantly trying to improve their knowledge, so what was accepted as 'best knowledge' this time last year is now out of date.

[laurenceb]

A drop in vacation centre for teens has opened in the Derby arena, one 17 year old cycled from Cambridge to get a jab!

[Neil]

11 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

It reminds me of the earlier weeks in lockdown 1 when the government said that PPE did not help very much, then it later became known that there was a shortage.

Reading between the lines, this was because they wanted to provide PPE for those most in need of it instead of seeing another mad rush like there was for bog roll. .....

 

I feel that this is an area open to a wide range of interpretations. Other readings of the same pronouncement would be, embarrassment at being caught on the hop, wishing to mask that stocks had been left to decline/become unusable over the preceding decade and a hope that no one would notice nursing staff and carers wearing bin bags.

[Hobby]

Or no-one expected it to be as bad as it was... 

 

Both views are probably valid to a certain extent I believe...

 

We have the same debate about snow ploughs on the UK rail system, in this case do you spend massive amounts of money every year replenishing stocks of stuff that might only be used once every blue moon or should that money be spent on stuff that's needed (and will be used) straight away... If money was no object and the NHS had a money tree then they'd hold lots of things that might be needed.... Unfortunately Reality steps in...

[hayfield]

Interesting piece on the Telegraph's front page

 

WHO enquiry chief points finger at bat infection in Wuhan Lab

 

Dr Peter Ben Embarek said it is highly likely a lab employee picked up the virus whilst working in the field, later in the article it seems China was exerting pressure for the results of the WHU findings to be down played, especially around the lab and its work

[hayfield]

46 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I feel that this is an area open to a wide range of interpretations. Other readings of the same pronouncement would be, embarrassment at being caught on the hop, wishing to mask that stocks had been left to decline/become unusable over the preceding decade and a hope that no one would notice nursing staff and carers wearing bin bags.

 

I think the way the NHS buys and keeps reserve stocks and the inability of UK manufacturing to supply demand is something that will need looking at in the cold light of day, plus private care providers who were also woefully unprepared for what happened

 

No one person, group or political party is solely responsible, but over time we have clearly failed to plan properly and wrongly put our trust in others

 

Also infection control seemingly differed greatly in both different hospitals and different care homes. Clearly lessons to be learnt in all areas  

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, laurenceb said:

A drop in vacation centre for teens has opened in the Derby arena, one 17 year old cycled from Cambridge to get a jab!

Are they offering free holidays as an incentive?

 

John

 

Another Gem brought to you by AutoCorrect.....

Edited August 13, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Andy Hayter]

25 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

I think the way the NHS buys and keeps reserve stocks and the inability of UK manufacturing to supply demand is something that will need looking at in the cold light of day, plus private care providers who were also woefully unprepared for what happened

 

No one person, group or political party is solely responsible, but over time we have clearly failed to plan properly and wrongly put our trust in others

 

Also infection control seemingly differed greatly in both different hospitals and different care homes. Clearly lessons to be learnt in all areas  

 

 

Well I know of at least one care home company that has learned its lesson.

 

Next time there is a pandemic, keep hold of your PPE and don't give it to the NHS  in their hours of need - because you won't get fresh stocks for months.

[Reorte]

40 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Also infection control seemingly differed greatly in both different hospitals and different care homes. Clearly lessons to be learnt in all areas  

I think there's a bit of benefit of hindsight with the whole care home business. And the unused Nightingale hospitals. We saw health services collapsing under the weight in other countries, so it wasn't an unreasonable assumption at the time that the priority should be to take as much weight off the NHS as possible.

[alastairq]

39 minutes ago, hayfield said:

plus private care providers who were also woefully unprepared for what happened

 There are an awful lot of private care providers who have but one client. 

Round here, quite a few private care providers [IE, private individuals or families, who employ their  own care provider staff, rather than contracting out their care needs] were actively in denial last year about covid!!

However, these small , private, care units get counted in with the big conglomerate care providers..

[hayfield]

5 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 There are an awful lot of private care providers who have but one client. 

Round here, quite a few private care providers [IE, private individuals or families, who employ their  own care provider staff, rather than contracting out their care needs] were actively in denial last year about covid!!

However, these small , private, care units get counted in with the big conglomerate care providers..

 

I think there is a wealth of difference between one person being employed to look after one other person and nursing homes looking after quite a few residents with quite a number of different staff. Certainly looking after people  in care homes or carers who look after numerous clients is a lot of different to one to one caring. My thoughts were to this sector rather than one to one caring

 

Quite often one to one caring even part time is often both better in quality and far less risk in cross contamination, as relationships are built up, we have a family friend who is reliant on carers twice a day, they have just parted with one awful company who's quality was poor and it was found out they were claiming for services they never provided. The new company thankfully is far better.  

[Hobby]

4 minutes ago, hayfield said:

they have just parted with one awful company who's quality was poor and it was found out they were claiming for services they never provided. The new company thankfully is far better.  

 

Luck of the draw, we're on our third care company so far for cover whilst I'm working...

[alastairq]

6 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I think there is a wealth of difference between one person being employed to look after one other person and nursing homes looking after quite a few residents with quite a number of different staff. Certainly looking after people  in care homes or carers who look after numerous clients is a lot of different to one to one caring.

 Indeed.

But when it came to the media spotlighting the issues last year, no differentiation was made.

WHilst some private care employers only have one or two employees, many such small employers[in terms of client number] can have a whole team of carers employed. [An example close to me, one person profoundly disabled, needs a team of 6 to 8 staff, employed by the family, to provide 24 hour car, plus other needs...Plus, someone employed to manage the team....plus someone to take over team management to cover holidays, sickness....the staff list soon grows way above the basic carer-by-the- bedside, or whatever.]

Therefore, even with but one 'client', the PPE needs can be significant.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Or no-one expected it to be as bad as it was... 

 

Maybe not expected but feared most certainly, our Son and his colleagues back in early March 2020 had already been chatting to friends and medical staff direct in China they know or had worked with before (even though I am not sure China would have liked the fact) about the spread and effect and over here medical staff were already fearing the worst here, our Son sent his family down to us a few days before the announcement, he and others were changing clothes and washing in their garages, gazebos, caravans on drives or whatever they could rather than going straight into their houses with family inside, there were even some colleagues who were “asked” to vacate their rented accommodation/shared houses by other residents, most ended up sharing the houses vacated by staff families for the duration or at least until they had a better idea of the risks.

 

It took a while longer for the “higher ups” and information to hit home.

[durham light infantry]

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

I think the way the NHS buys and keeps reserve stocks and the inability of UK manufacturing to supply demand is something that will need looking at in the cold light of day, plus private care providers who were also woefully unprepared for what happened.

 

2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

Well I know of at least one care home company that has learned its lesson.

 

Next time there is a pandemic, keep hold of your PPE and don't give it to the NHS  in their hours of need - because you won't get fresh stocks for months.

 

I order the PPE and consumables for our home every week and keep a small overstock (I have to keep within a budget, who doesn't) we were never short until the week before first lockdown. When I queried the missing items on the following weeks delivery, I was told that all the suppliers stocks had gone to the NHS. We had to use Facebook to ask the local community to help, which they did.

 

We were briefed as far as possible at the end of January 2020, and made preparations on what information we were given. 

Come March we were robbed of our PPE, any visiting NHS Healthcare professionals stopped coming and then had infected patients discharged from hospital into our care.

[monkeysarefun]

Here it was apparent something was going on in January 2020  when it  became impossible to buy face masks needed during the bushfires that were occuring everywhere here at the time. Pm 2.5 readings were in the high hundreds, when above 30 is considered hazardous by the WHO (not the band) and there were days when going outside  was impossible without a mask to mitigate the choking smoke.

 

At the time it was assumed that local demand   was the reason for the facemask  shortage but turns out the local Chinese community were aware of what had hit back home and had been told to help out....

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mission-to-source-australian-medical-supplies-20200325-p54du8.html

Edited August 13, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Pete the Elaner]

I went to London yesterday for the first time in well over a year.

On my train there, I was very much in the minority by wearing a face covering. Since it has become optional, it seems many do not really care. From the small sample of people around me on my journey, I guess that around 30% wore coverings.

Face coverings are mandatory on the Underground though, so maybe that would be better? It was a bit, but judge for yourself.

I took these on the Victoria Line around 9.15-9.30 last night. Judging from my earlier trips on the Circle & Piccadilly lines, this was a typical cross-section.

 

The proportion of those wearing coverings was higher, but I find it hard to believe that all those without have some sort of exemption. They clearly don't care.

I wonder why I bother. I don't do it simply to comply but covering my chops with a bandana for 30 or so minutes while I am just sitting down (or even clinging on to a pole as I stand) doesn't exactly hurt & may actually be doing some good.

[alastairq]

Perhaps  it is time to simply avoid [or , ignore?] those places where the couldn't-care-less's tend to congregate or inhabit?