Young 'uns having the vaccine.

[sxturbo]

Got my text from NHS this afternoon.

Booked it this evening, having it next Wednesday, wonder what one I'll end up with.

Are they giving the AZ one to 35 year olds?

 

[IT Minion]

Got my text from NHS this afternoon.

Booked it this evening, having it next Wednesday, wonder what one I'll end up with.

Are they giving the AZ one to 35 year olds?

I think they try to go for Moderna or Pfizer, but I wouldn't be surprised if they still dish out some AZ shots. Men are lower risk than women so... *shrug*

 

[sxturbo]

I think they try to go for Moderna or Pfizer, but I wouldn't be surprised if they still dish out some AZ shots. Men are lower risk than women so... *shrug*

I'll take whatever, if it goes sideways we've all gotta die someday

 

[JohnD]

Good news from Glaxo, they have developed a drug that can halt or slow down progression of the disease in infected vulnerable people.

The test results were so good that they have been instructed to move on from the testing programme. This is usually done when a drug is so good at saving lives that it is unethical to refuse treatments to some patients so they can be used as a control group to build statistics.

https://markets.ft.com/data/announce/detail?dockey=1323-14987529-0JVMBO4NKP2UAM7RB58D91S5MO

"The CHMP reached its opinion following a review of data including an interim analysis of efficacy and safety data from the Phase 3 COMET-ICE (COVID-19 Monoclonal antibody Efficacy Trial - Intent to Care Early) trial, which evaluated sotrovimab as monotherapy for the early treatment of COVID-19 in adults at high risk of hospitalisation. Efficacy results of the interim analysis, based on data from 583 randomised patients, demonstrated an 85% (p=0.002) reduction in hospitalisation or death in those receiving sotrovimab compared to placebo, the primary endpoint of the trial. As a result, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the trial be stopped for enrolment due to evidence of profound efficacy. The CHMP also considered data on the medicine's quality and safety."

 

[thomp1983]

37 had pfizer jab this evening, very efficient setup at my local centre, second jab booked for 6th August.

 

[JP_]

If they'd ignored Lord Covid, the Greatest, nobody would've noticed.
1600 (average) people would still die every day as usual, a lot more would get sick as usual and most of them recover as usual.
Same as any other day, month year...

Wishful thinking. Without the lockdown and virus over a million would have died in the UK alone, and it would carry on for years.

 

[johnny2007]

Wishful thinking. Without the lockdown and virus over a million would have died in the UK alone, and it would carry on for years.

How the helll do you know that???
It's the same as saying if our ancestor hadn't discovered fire, we would be extinct.
Total shot in the dark.

 

[JP_]

How the helll do you know that???

It's called science.

 

[johnny2007]

It's called science.

No, that's speculation, pure and simple.
You and anyone else don't know what would've happened if they didn't put you on house arrest.
There were flu outbreaks worse than this in recent years and nobody was deprived of their freedom.
Nhs wards got extremely busy as it happens every year in flu season, people died as it happens every day, millions got infected as it happens every year and most recovered as it happens every year, but the common people carried on living free.
So your "science" is speculative.
Empirically it would've been the same as if they hadn't put you on house arrest and imposed other restrictions.

 

[noseall]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just another 'it's the same as Flu' nutter.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

No, that's speculation, pure and simple.
You and anyone else don't know what would've happened if they didn't put you on house arrest.
There were flu outbreaks worse than this in recent years and nobody was deprived of their freedom.
Nhs wards got extremely busy as it happens every year in flu season, people died as it happens every day, millions got infected as it happens every year and most recovered as it happens every year, but the common people carried on living free.
So your "science" is speculative.
Empirically it would've been the same as if they hadn't put you on house arrest and imposed other restrictions.

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'empirically'.

For sure, speculation is involved, but it's cumulative expert speculation based on a number of things, experience in other similar situations, mathematical modelling of different scenarios, scientific research and advice, etc.

During the Spanish flu epidemic, it wasn't just a loss of freedom, it was a tremendous loss of life, which a temporary loss of freedom would have reduced.

Which do you prefer, a temporary loss of freedom, or a loss of life? We're not discussing your life, we 're discussing the lives of your nearest and dearest, some of whom you may be responsible for their welfare.

 

[johnny2007]

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'empirically'.

For sure, speculation is involved, but it's cumulative expert speculation based on a number of things, experience in other similar situations, mathematical modelling of different scenarios, scientific research and advice, etc.

During the Spanish flu epidemic, it wasn't just a loss of freedom, it was a tremendous loss of life, which a temporary loss of freedom would have reduced.

Which do you prefer, a temporary loss of freedom, or a loss of life? We're not discussing your life, we 're discussing the lives of your nearest and dearest, some of whom you may be responsible for their welfare.

Total mumbling as you're wrong as usual.
Empirically means that it's based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
This is copied and pasted, so not my words.
If they observed and considered what had happened in previous years, they would have taken a more scientific approach instead of depriving people of their freedom.
Your "scientific" models you refer to are simply based on pure speculation.
In universities they take the result they speculated is correct and build a model to fit it.
This is what has happened with Lord Covid.
To obtain a more possible model, they should start from the data they hold, including historical data, and then get to the results, not the opposite.
Are you going to deny that previous recent years had the nhs struggling in flu season?
Are you going to deny that in previous recent years many people died, most got infected and the majority recovered?

 

[denso13]

Are you going to deny that in previous recent years many people died, most got infected and the majority recovered?

Are you going to explain why we were under house arrest if it wasn't required?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Total mumbling as you're wrong as usual.
Empirically means that it's based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
This is copied and pasted, so not my words.
If they observed and considered what had happened in previous years, they would have taken a more scientific approach instead of depriving people of their freedom.

So your speculation (theory) is based on what might actually, (empirically) have happened?
That's nonsense, as I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[johnny2007]

So your speculation (theory) is based on what might actually, (empirically) have happened?
That's nonsense, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Don't try to twist words as usual, your communist attitude doesn't work with me.
I destroyed racist communists like you to the point they left the union in embarrassment.
You know what I have stated and you know you're totally wrong, so shut up.
Your speculative model had nothing to do with science and empirical studies.
My proposal was based on previous data, hence empirical.
Stop trying to win lost arguments, you're not that sharp.
I told you before that everybody here is more intelligent than you, take that as an empirical statement.