IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Lxxx 5,826]

17 minutes ago, All Right said:

Why do you suggest that? It’s likely already here to be honest. We seem to be adding covid ‘clusters’ almost daily for some strange reason. Surely several clusters now being identified suggests some sort of low level community transmission? Never mind though regardless let’s have a massive Lido night at the Villa for several thousand people and the Douglas Christmas lights ceremony for good measure. I’d be betting 14 days on from the Lido reunion will be when it hits and it will have nothing to do with returning students or other returnees. It will be to do with our government seeking to ignore reality. 

Or choosing to be rooted in reality and not buy into the doom-mongering by a portion of the population who would love nothing more than to be locked down so they could say 'I told you so' from behind the curtains.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Lxxx

[wrighty 5,414]

1 hour ago, Lxxx said:

You would have to be a special kind of stupid to be injected with a rushed vaccine with side effects unknown at a time you were carrying the most precious cargo imaginable. 

Are you more worried about the vaccine, or the virus?  I appreciate you've always been a bit of an 'anti-vaxxer', but I don't understand how on the one hand you're downplaying the effects of the virus, and in the next post accusing a section of society of being stupid if they choose to protect themselves against it with a harmless version.

[manxman34 296]

1 hour ago, Lxxx said:

As far as I am aware it stops symptoms not the transmission. In the Oxford vaccine trial on monkeys they still had the virus in their nasal passages even though they were not exhibiting outward signs of having it.

So those who choose to have the vaccine gain immunity, and anti-vaxers can catch the disease, continuing natural selection

[Lxxx 5,826]

13 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Are you more worried about the vaccine, or the virus?  I appreciate you've always been a bit of an 'anti-vaxxer', but I don't understand how on the one hand you're downplaying the effects of the virus, and in the next post accusing a section of society of being stupid if they choose to protect themselves against it with a harmless version.

We were referring to pregnant women. As far as I am aware there were no pregnant women in any of the trials so no-one knows the effect of this new kind of vaccine on foetuses. Mrs Lxxx, who was pregnant last year, is quite insistent on this fact.

Of course if someone wants to take that chance then that is of course their decision. Maybe it was ill judged of me to call them stupid but it would be wise to omit our most physiologically vulnerable in the first wave. 

I also don't personally think I am a 'bit of an anti-vaxxer' at all. It would be silly to be anti anything if it is safe and effective. It would be prudent though to see if it satisfies both those criteria over the medium term before we hail it when it isn't even out to market. 

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Lxxx

[All Right 50]

49 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

How long do we stop living our life on the basis that covid may return?

I think you read my comments wrong. I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t do it far from it. I’m saying that if there is a real underlying problem with covid they’re not admitting to as a lot of people now seem to think then it’s just about the stupidest thing ever to sanction. But I suppose if anything happens it will all be conveniently blamed on our students regardless. 

[BenFairfax 119]

30 minutes ago, manxman34 said:

So those who choose to have the vaccine gain immunity, and anti-vaxers can catch the disease, continuing natural selection

That how I see it, COVID itself was an evolutionary event and vaccine choice will create another. Way medics deal with viruses is vaccines, that is the treatment.... Glad no one who knows me asked if I am taking the vaccine or not, if they did I think I would take it as a "diss".

Myxomatosis selection of rabbit social behaviour comes to mind. 

Edited November 23, 2020 by BenFairfax
Added slightly cryptic myxomatosis comment.

[the stinking enigma 11,180]

I listened to a bit about this vaccine trial on r4 this morning. 135 participants 102 were given a placebo. Of the remaining 33, half were given the full dose, the other half, a half dose then the full one. I realise the math don't math but it was something like that. A very small test at best

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by the stinking enigma

[Apple 690]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55040992

 

Daily testing to reduce quarantine. Sounds like good news. No isolation if negative.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Apple

[tetchtyke 261]

I'm no anti-vaxxer, but the pharmaceutical industry hasn't always covered itself in glory when it comes to being honest about the safety of drugs. Thalidomide is the obvious example but not the only one.

I'm wary of taking a rushed vaccine and I *do* think Covid is serious.

[wrighty 5,414]

9 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I listened to a bit about this vaccine trial on r4 this morning. 135 participants 102 were given a placebo. Of the remaining 33, half were given the full dose, the other half, a half dose then the full one. I realise the math don't math but it was something like that. A very small test at best

 

I think there were 20000 participants.  The numbers you refer to are the ones that got covid - most of them in the placebo arm of the trial (the 102) and 33 in the treatment arm.  So essentially you've prevented about 70% of the expected cases in the vaccinated group.  In a (very) simplistic way that's how these trials work.

The half-dose vs full-dose thing is on the basis of a sub-group analysis.  I'd always treat such things with caution.

[wrighty 5,414]

27 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

We were referring to pregnant women. As far as I am aware there were no pregnant women in any of the trials so no-one knows the effect of this new kind of vaccine on foetuses. Mrs Lxxx, who was pregnant last year, is quite insistent on this fact.

Of course if someone wants to take that chance then that is of course their decision. Maybe it was ill judged of me to call them stupid but it would be wise to omit our most physiologically vulnerable in the first wave. 

I also don't personally think I am a 'bit of an anti-vaxxer' at all. It would be silly to be anti anything if it is safe and effective. It would be prudent though to see if it satisfies both those criteria over the medium term before we hail it when it isn't even out to market. 

 

Pregnant women aren't physiologically vulnerable.  Nothing is ever tested on pregnant women, and most things aren't tested on children.  So you're right, that the effects on foetuses are unknown, but not really.  Plenty of pregnant women catch colds, with no known foetal effects.  The covid vaccine is a modified cold virus.  You've also got the placenta, which is great at stopping harmful things getting through.

What I can say with some certainty is that if a pregnant woman gets a severe covid infection it is bad news for the foetus as well as the mother.

[Gladys 6,904]

3 minutes ago, tetchtyke said:

I'm no anti-vaxxer, but the pharmaceutical industry hasn't always covered itself in glory when it comes to being honest about the safety of drugs. Thalidomide is the obvious example but not the only one.

I'm wary of taking a rushed vaccine and I *do* think Covid is serious.

Thalidomide was a tragic disaster, but that was 60 years ago and surely the ways of testing for side effects have improved vastly, as has an aversion to product risk. 

Had a heated exchange last night with a few friends, and it struck me that the same people who are willing to lock themselves away because of covid, are also the least likely to have an 'unproven' vaccine. 

Perhaps they are very risk averse, but I have a sneaking feeling that at least one has become 'institutionalised' and finds comfort in not having to face up to the world and will happily remain closeted in self-isolation indefinitely. 

Somewhat telling was one who said they won't have the vaccine now but will next year to enable them go on a planned holiday next March! 

[Lxxx 5,826]

17 hours ago, wrighty said:

Pregnant women aren't physiologically vulnerable.  Nothing is ever tested on pregnant women, and most things aren't tested on children.  So you're right, that the effects on foetuses are unknown, but not really.  Plenty of pregnant women catch colds, with no known foetal effects.  The covid vaccine is a modified cold virus.  You've also got the placenta, which is great at stopping harmful things getting through.

What I can say with some certainty is that if a pregnant woman gets a severe covid infection it is bad news for the foetus as well as the mother.

Which is all very well if we are using a similar type of technology tested over time like the flu vaccine, for example, but this vaccine is using new technology to turn the bodies cells into viral protein-making factories. It's still experimental across large groups of society.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily against this vaccine I was just speaking from the perspective that as a new father, I wouldn't have wanted my wife to take part in this live experiment, just yet. I'm not ideologically opposed to anything, apart from racists and women from Peel.

As I said, the stupid comment was, err, stupid.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Lxxx

[Banker 1,097]

27 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Perhaps they are very risk averse, but I have a sneaking feeling that at least one has become 'institutionalised' and finds comfort in not having to face up to the world and will happily remain closeted in self-isolation indefinitely. 

Was the person Howie or Ashie who finds comfort?😂

[All Right 50]

1 hour ago, manxman34 said:

So those who choose to have the vaccine gain immunity, and anti-vaxers can catch the disease, continuing natural selection

But as only 1% of them will die so that’s hardly a concern is it?