Are you worried yet.

[Phil H]

Tier 2: High alert

This is for areas with a higher or rapidly rising level of infections, where some additional restrictions need to be in place.
In tier 2:

you must not socialise with anyone you do not live with or who is not in your support bubble in any indoor setting, whether at home or in a public place
you must not socialise in a group of more than 6 people outside, including in a garden or a public space – this is called the ‘rule of 6’

public attendance at outdoor and indoor events (performances and shows) is permitted, limited to whichever is lower: 50% capacity, or either 2,000 people outdoors or 1,000 people indoors

public attendance at spectator sport and business events can resume inside and outside, subject to social contact rules and limited to whichever is lower: 50% capacity, or either 2,000 people outdoors or 1,000 people indoors

Is it me, or is there a bit of a contradiction in all that?

PH

 

[Oneball]

The missus has just reminded me that the tiers are all going to be scrapped on the 23rd so luckily you can see the in-laws in Kent after all!

Lucky you!

“Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more!”

 

[GeoffCapes]

“Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more!”

Good old Blackadder!

 

[philw696]

 

[philw696]

 

[Silvercat]

Today my little part of Kent has 182 cases per 100,000. However this afternoon we will no doubt be in Tier 3 or even 4 if they decide to make that one up because of two areas (Swale & Thanet) 50-60 miles away having the highest and 4th highest numbers for the country.

Lovely!

An expert on the news this morning said that there was a "wilful non-compliance of the lockdown rules in the county" Which I have to agree with and the roads have never been busier, the shops (which are open) are mobbed, and judging by the people I know at least, are seeing friends and family in large groups as if there was no lockdown at all.

My wife's best friend has decided to take her kids out of school as she is concerned about them catching it as school and passing it on to her mum who has a very poor immune system from Chemo last year, yet she's out and about every day!

Give me strength!!!!!!!!!!

Well if we think we have it bad, check out North Dakota in the US. Their infection rate yesterday was 9,930/100,000...! Mind boggling TBH.

 

[Silvercat]

Hi, slowly on the mend thanks.
I’m not generally anti vaccine, in fact to date me/ the family are fully vaccinated in line with requirements.
My concerns arise from the fact that

1. These have been rushed through in months....not the usual years it takes for a full safety analysis.
2. There’s little data to suggest that they’re gonna provide immunity for any more than a few months, potentially requiring regular boosters, particularly if new strains require new vaccine tweaks. You could therefore be injecting a cocktail into yourself over time - no assessment of the risks has been undertaken. God knows what damage it could be doing.
3. I now think the risks to the majority are minimal, indeed many eminent and knowledgeable medical staff have suggested such but as it’s against mainstream messaging have been overlooked. Most that die are elderly or with health conditions....a very small %.
4. Australia, is currently virtually covid free. It’s been suggested that i’ll Need a vaccine to travel. Why would I want to travel to somewhere that’s locked down or in whatever tier the local Govt see fit to introduce.

So, it’s a no thanks from me at this point. In no hurry to be vaccinated, I’ll let others be the lab rats and sit back and watch what transpires.
It’ll take years and years to vaccinate the numbers they’re talking about.....ignoring ongoing boosters.

I fully respect your view point Wattie but for me personally, I would be quite happy to be a "lab rat" and so like Professor John VanTam has said, I'd be happy to be at the front of the vaccine queue given half a chance. Anything to get back to some reasonable state of semi normality....whatever that means.

 

[MarkMas]

Hang on, I was asked directly why I wouldnt take a vaccine, which I explained. This article covers some of the feelings I have (and indeed many others have too) towards the topic -hence it’s relevance.

I made no objection to you saying how you feel, and if the article feels relevant to you, then that's great for you. But it seemed to me that the article was just a fairly thin list of possible negative questions and feelings, supposedly challenging some strongly encouraging factual data, and I was trying to explore why people want to read that sort of thing, and why they want to pass it on. (Few answers so far.)

I read your explanation and complimented you on it, even though it Conflicts with my thoughts.

Great; thanks.

You don’t have to read what I post and if you think it’s negative that’s fine. Fact is, there are two sides to this topic whether you wanna believe that or not. Not everybody is convinced that the vaccines are needed or are indeed the solution.....including eminent scientists. I disagree with the crappy conspiracy website comment too. I think much of the Govt information you’re fed is total ****.

As you know, generally I don't read this sort of thing, if I can avoid it. But many others do.

Anyway, I wasn't really taking issue with the accuracy or value of the article you quoted, or types of sources, or 'sides to the argument' (although I will take unfiltered information from the Professor of Medicine at Oxford over a random MD quoted on a website, 100% of the time).

Again, I'm asking why people seem to be drawn to the negativity (and tenuous negativity at that). The story always seems to be, "10 reasons why this cute kitten might be a massive liability" or "Reasons to be fearful at the beach" or "Life-saving vaccines do massively reduce infections, but what about mortality rates, or side effects, or other bad stuff?" or "Cheese sandwiches might cause airplanes to crash, says retired doctor". I tend to think "What tiresome ********; I wish I hadn't even read the headline." But many other people (in general, not specially you, Wattie) clearly think, "This is an important challenge to Govt ****, that others must see."

I take offence to the suggestion that i’m unhappy and i’m certainly not anxious. I have an amazing life and family and I’m very keen to protect that and our lifestyle in this ridiculous situation that everyone finds themselves in.

You are, of course, free to take offense, if you wish, but I was not intending to make a personal suggestion about your own state of mind (although I can see how it might be interpreted like that). But that does raise another part of the question that interests me - I do know quite a lot of cheerful pessimists, which seems odd. Whereas I'm more of a dour optimist, which seems entirely normal. To me.

Again, I don't care if that particular article is right or wrong, or even if vaccines are good or bad (good, obviously). And I'm not suggesting anything about any particular person's state of mind.

I'm just wondering why some people, when they see an article that takes a good thing and then sows negative doubts about that good thing, seem to feel that this is valuable and sharable. For example, if you can make a case that reading this sort of thing, and sharing this sort of thing, it is protecting your family and lifestyle in some way, then that is the sort of answer I'm hoping for.

 

[Phil H]

Mark, have you ever done audit work in any discipline?

PH

 

[Wattie]

......
I'm just wondering why some people, when they see an article that takes a good thing and then sows negative doubts about that good thing, seem to feel that this is valuable and sharable. For example, if you can make a case that reading this sort of thing, and sharing this sort of thing, it is protecting your family and lifestyle in some way, then that is the sort of answer I'm hoping for.

My case for reading such an article is that I’m generally sceptical of any information that comes forth from Govt nowadays. We’re constantly told that the “science” is determining this situation but the facts are that the science is being interpreted differently around the world according to the political message that’s being followed......resulting in some ridiculous rules and outcomes.

What’s more those responsible for the rules often don’t follow them themselves and can’t even explain them correctly when challenged.

There are lots of equally qualified people out there to your Professor at Oxford that refute this situation is as bad as is being touted.

The rules regarding vaccine development were put in place for safety.......these rules are all being flouted and shortcuts taken. At what cost?
My family won’t be taking one until that cost is clear.

A return to normality does not require a vaccine. It requires common sense and good individual choices. Carry on as normal, wash your hands, wear a suitable medical mask (if you feel the need), socially distance at your choice.......etc. Vulnerable make their own choices too. We all know the risks and how you catch it- we also all know that the majority will survive.......97%+ so far.

This isn’t disappearing as a result of a vaccine......60million people and rising by around 500,000 per day is a moving target that will never be caught....you can’tstop it as you don’t know who has it.......especially in far flung parts of the world where logistics are difficult and especially if multi doses of vaccine are required for it to be effective.

I think this scenario is being used for other purposes that will reveal themselves in due course.

 

[MarkMas]

Mark, have you ever done audit work in any discipline?

PH

Me? Nope. I started my career at an accounting firm, but in the IT consultancy division. I probably should have been a lawyer.

This is my Myers-Briggs profile - pretty accurate.

 

[RobinL]

I made no objection to you saying how you feel, and if the article feels relevant to you, then that's great for you. But it seemed to me that the article was just a fairly thin list of possible negative questions and feelings, supposedly challenging some strongly encouraging factual data, and I was trying to explore why people want to read that sort of thing, and why they want to pass it on. (Few answers so far.)


Great; thanks.


As you know, generally I don't read this sort of thing, if I can avoid it. But many others do.

Anyway, I wasn't really taking issue with the accuracy or value of the article you quoted, or types of sources, or 'sides to the argument' (although I will take unfiltered information from the Professor of Medicine at Oxford over a random MD quoted on a website, 100% of the time).

Again, I'm asking why people seem to be drawn to the negativity (and tenuous negativity at that). The story always seems to be, "10 reasons why this cute kitten might be a massive liability" or "Reasons to be fearful at the beach" or "Life-saving vaccines do massively reduce infections, but what about mortality rates, or side effects, or other bad stuff?" or "Cheese sandwiches might cause airplanes to crash, says retired doctor". I tend to think "What tiresome ****; I wish I hadn't even read the headline." But many other people (in general, not specially you, Wattie) clearly think, "This is an important challenge to Govt ****, that others must see."



You are, of course, free to take offense, if you wish, but I was not intending to make a personal suggestion about your own state of mind (although I can see how it might be interpreted like that). But that does raise another part of the question that interests me - I do know quite a lot of cheerful pessimists, which seems odd. Whereas I'm more of a dour optimist, which seems entirely normal. To me.

Again, I don't care if that particular article is right or wrong, or even if vaccines are good or bad (good, obviously). And I'm not suggesting anything about any particular person's state of mind.

I'm just wondering why some people, when they see an article that takes a good thing and then sows negative doubts about that good thing, seem to feel that this is valuable and sharable. For example, if you can make a case that reading this sort of thing, and sharing this sort of thing, it is protecting your family and lifestyle in some way, then that is the sort of answer I'm hoping for.

Interesting read.....

I have, in the past, been involved in or privvy to activities which I would reasonably have expected to see in the media. They didn't appear and in most cases as a result of political intervention.
I don't necessarily think that governments intentionally lie. They may not dig very deep to expose what they suspect may be misleading. And they frequently withhold information.

So... To your question. I prefer to have as much information from all sides of an arguement to make an informed judgement of my own, and being quite widely 'read' I'm usually pretty good at that.

Making my opinions known to others? It's something I do in the same vein. To add my thoughts into the background information that may, or may not influence others.

From chemical and biological engineering, through subsea engineering (which includes hydrocarbon physics through to properties and behaviours of metals, polymers etc), some business management, contract law, risk analysis. Oh and some paramedic based training along they way. I do a neat line in sutures!

Mass media is sold on emotions and uses facts to change/amplify/exploit those emotions.

Some newspapers reported the Oxford vaccine as 70%, some went for 90% (both not entirely correct)

I like to think of myself as a realist but occasional pessimist! But I enjoy discussion and an exchange of views even if they seem contrary to mine.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

 

[Wattie]

From adenoviruses to RNA: the pros and cons of different COVID vaccine technologies

From adenoviruses to RNA: the pros and cons of different COVID vaccine technologies

theconversation.com

If you read the article above, they admit under the CONS for the mRNA vaccine: there’s a theoretical probability vaccine DNA can integrate into your genome. If it’s admitted it's a theoretical possibility, you can bet your bottom dollar it WILL happen.
What happens if your DNA gets mutated?

Interestingly, to date no mRNA has yet been approved for human use. None.

Except of course the Covid19 vax likely will......fastracked.
Cynical me says that’s because lots of people stand to make Billions and an alternative narrative gets in the way of that opportunity.

 

[Phil H]

Me? Nope. I started my career at an accounting firm, but in the IT consultancy division. I probably should have been a lawyer.

OK, then perhaps I can explain a perspective, or at least mine which has been formed over many years of auditing various aspects of high integrity and safety critical engineering projects; I don’t claim to be an expert, just experienced.

A key requirement for an auditor is an inquiring mind which can quickly determine whether or not evidence confirms or denies that a project is correctly executed, and when I apply the same inquiring mind to the Covid situation I see things that simply do not make sense; as ever, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and the public does not (and should not) know everything that goes on ‘behind the scenes’ but a lot of what we do know from reputable sources simply does not add up, and that makes it easy for conspiracy theorists to have fun.

There is much to praise about aspects of Covid management in the UK, e.g. the resilience and dedication of NHS staff, creation of Nightingale hospitals, business support, etc, and we should be grateful for that. I have to say, though, that I do not buy into politicians’ assurances that they have spent and will spend our money wisely, and I am not reassured by promises on the vaccine front. Their PR has at times been lamentable, and they don’t seem to know that Covid-19 doesn’t listen to soundbites!

Sceptics are not being negative per se, they just don’t believe everything they’re told but get castigated as being negative for saying so or are accused of believing conspiracy theories. Did Matt Hancock inspire confidence with his answers on Question Time last week? Not as far as I’m concerned no, and that’s my opinion from watching his performance - not because some loon with a blog says so.

Sceptics might come across as negative, but I assure you that without them the world would be a much more dangerous place!

PH

 

[Wattie]

OK, then perhaps I can explain a perspective, or at least mine which has been formed over many years of auditing various aspects of high integrity and safety critical engineering projects; I don’t claim to be an expert, just experienced.

A key requirement for an auditor is an inquiring mind which can quickly determine whether or not evidence confirms or denies that a project is correctly executed, and when I apply the same inquiring mind to the Covid situation I see things that simply do not make sense; as ever, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and the public does not (and should not) know everything that goes on ‘behind the scenes’ but a lot of what we do know from reputable sources simply does not add up, and that makes it easy for conspiracy theorists to have fun.

There is much to praise about aspects of Covid management in the UK, e.g. the resilience and dedication of NHS staff, creation of Nightingale hospitals, business support, etc, and we should be grateful for that. I have to say, though, that I do not buy into politicians’ assurances that they have spent and will spend our money wisely, and am I not reassured by promises on the vaccine front. Their PR has at times been lamentable, and they don’t seem to know that Covid-19 doesn’t listen to soundbites!

Sceptics are not being negative per se, they just don’t believe everything they’re told but get castigated as being negative for saying so or are accused of believing conspiracy theories. Did Matt Hancock inspire confidence with his answers on Question Time last week? Not as far as I’m concerned no, and that’s my opinion from watching his performance - not because some loon with a blog says so.

Sceptics might come across as negative, but I assure you that without them the world would be a much more dangerous place!

PH

One other interesting aspect here in vaccine development is “Morale Hazard”.

Billions are on the line here, huge amounts of money.

Why have developers been given “liability indemnification” by many Govts they have agreed to supply?

AstraZeneca to be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries

AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine hopeful by most of the countries with which it has struck supply agreements, a senior executive told Reuters.

www.reuters.com

This is pretty dangerous in my view as undoubtably companies/people will put personal profit over the risk they’ve been indemnified against.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2030600

It’s a bit like bankers continually manipulating markets, cos they know the worst that will happen is a small fine......far less than the profits they’ve made.

RNA vaccine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It’s interesting that elsewhere within here many were very upset at the thought of eating Chlorinated Chicken -yet they’ll allow a fast tracked vaccine to be injected (possibly maybe multiple times!) when the risks are not fully known.

Lab rat, no thanks.

 

[philw696]

Spot on there Wattie mate.
Hope your recovery is going well all the best from me and Ms French.

 

[CatmanV2]

when I apply the same inquiring mind to the Covid situation I see things that simply do not make sense;

Some examples might well inform the discussion. I'm curious. Don't forget simply having a different opinion is fine. The problems lies elsewhere.

I do not buy into politicians’ assurances that they have spent and will spend our money wisely,

This is a fascinating area. Linked to the deserving poor. 'Wisely' is an intensely individual view. What I think is a wise way to spend public money is very different from my mother's, for example. But again, some ideas of specifics to which you refer would interest me (not speaking for anyone else!)

There is also a factor attribution where we seek to determine why people do the things they do and typically rate our own motivations far higher than others.

Sceptics might come across as negativ

Having worked with many auditors, I have the greatest respect for the process. I think you're blanketing informed and curious scepticism with the massive application of confirmation bias and group polarasiation.

Anyway, would love to see some of the examples above, but either way, keep safe

C

 

[Oneball]

Opened the BBC news this morning and have one question:





Is Wattie masquerading as an 80’s pop star?

 

[philw696]

Wattie ain't that handsome

 

[safrane]

The more I read of this thread the more I feel that the virus is a fate we deserve.