General Chat

anything

- HMG

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/31/covid-vaccine-uk-doctors-criticise-rescheduling-of-second-doses

They are following Mr B’s cunning plan. Who would have thought that even that would

have been the remotest possibility :-(

Yeah, sure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH3-Gt7mgyM

:-|

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/12/24/letterstony-blairs-vaccine-intervention-last-thing-country-needs/

Blair showed that scientific illiteracy is not reserved to the Tories , a very annoying interview . He should stick to charging huge fees fior his vacuous thoughts to merchant bankers and their ilk.

Unfortunately one of his ideas - 12 weeks for a second jab - has been picked up.

Going back to March at each stage of this catastrophe pretty well the worse possible decisions have been taken by the pollies, not only in the UK but nearly everywhere else as well. K Starmer makes one wonder what he did with the word "opposition" or at least he has a curious understanding of the word.

The UK is facing what is sometimes called an existential threat. It has survived such threats in the past and will do so in the future even if the glass is very dark. "Normal" nowhere in sight.

I am not, by any means, a TBlair fan but I think 'his' suggestion holds some water as far as the economy is concerned. My OH and I are in the next group in line for the jab so, because we shall only be beteeen 60-70% -proof against Covid after thr first one, it means that for another 12 weeks we shall continue to do what we have been doing (not mixing) even though we realise that 60-70% means that if we catch covid we will not be anywhere as poorly and will be unlikely to be hospitalised.

It's not what we expected but hopefully it will mean that businesses can take off once again and some semblance of life as we knew it will be within the grasp of everyone.

By the way, do we all think this suggestion has come from Tony Blair or from some other source? My bet is on another source speaking through Blair.

I think if you have already had the first jab and have an appointment for the second - then you should still have it.

The NHS has been instructed to change the appointment for a 2nd jab by 12 weeks cancelling any existing 2nd appt.

Neither Pfizer nor Moderna endorse this change because there is no factual basis for it. It rests on a belief that something is better than nothing something being a guess in the wind that a single jab will be sufficient.

Experience with other vaccines strongly points to undue delays in the 2nd jab seriously reducing overall efficacity and even being dangerous in the case of the Zeneca vaccine. This latter vaccine is based on a sophisticated techniques but a very old method of using a whole deactivated virus.

The whole point of a vaccine in a pandemic or epidemic situation is to prevent the transmission of the disease. The widely used flu vaccine has a potential of preventing flu in about 65% of cases in a good year and not even half that in a bad year. Take up by the target groups is about 60%. That has not been sufficient to prevent large numbers of cases every winter.

Administered in line with the manufactur's recommendations all three vaccines have the potential of > 90% prevention and thus the very real prospect of suppressing cov-B117 altogether. So why is that no longer the policy ?

Panic, wishful thinking, poor maths, laziness, lack of planning, budgets , snake oil salesmen all come to mind plus the usual suspect.

The track record of the current crew does not inspire much confidence. For my own part I shall remain a troglodyte for the forseeable future.

names, I think that is where the doctors' complaints are coming from. The time that will have to be spent in contacting everyone who already has a date for the second shot.

Personally, I am not a Boris-and-cohorts fan but on this occasion, I think they've played a blinder that will get the economy moving quicker than everyone thought would be possible. I have no qualms about waiting 12 weeks between shots.

One thing I do wonder about is whether any corruption charges will be brought against anyone involved in the billions of pounds wasted on contracts handed out to sycophantic companies who were supposedly able to carry out testing/tracing during the early part of our covid pandemic and who failed drastically to do so. In fact their failure to cope was a spectacular waste of taxpayers' money.

What do we think the chances are of bringing charges against everyone concerned? My own instinct would be 'zilch'.


(I edited the first line of the penultimate paragraph as I realised I had written 'anti-corruption' instead of 'corruption' as my mind was on that aspect of policing.)