Left Back
-
Posts
6,719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by Left Back
-
-
I get the government wanting people tested on arrival. why do they actually care if you get tested before departing this country?
The destination country of course will care and may well have their own requirements.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Honest_Man#1 said:
This may sound bizarre, but actually admitting their mistake (whilst a monumental one that cost a lot of lives) genuinely makes me respect them more. Every time I hear a politician refuse to answer a question multiple times, or refuse to admit any sort of mistake (as they almost exclusively all do) it makes me seething, so just admitting that they made a mistake makes me (strangely) more likely to vote for them.
If she wasn't leaving anyway there's no way it would have happened. Sacrificial lamb.
1 -
7 minutes ago, ICTChris said:
I'm not so sure about vaccine passports for everyday things like going to restaurants etc as a matter of course. If individual business owners want to require people to be vaccinated that could be a different thing - I wouldn't have qualms, for example, about a nursery requiring that children be up to date with vaccinations when they attend. That's a slightly different scenario than needing to scan a passport to go to Sainsbury's though.
If the virus respects the sanctity of the school gates surely it isn't going to pick on even younger children?
0 -
11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
Honestly? Based on the data?
Virtually all restrictions removed.
If hospitalisations and deaths go up then we react accordingly but otherwise, we grow a set of fucking balls and open up now. Not tomorrow. Right now. So that clubs have a chance to get tickets ready for the weekend fixtures.
I'd probably keep restrictions in place regarding not licking other human beings outside of your own family in enclosed spaces such as supermarkets. It's a bit early for relaxing that.
Probably shouldn't have been doing that pre-pandemic tbh
0 -
1 minute ago, Thereisalight.. said:
Outdoor transmission is less than 1% of cases, 0.1% actually according to a report last week. Why people need to be tested to go to Hampden when A- it’s outdoors, B - I assume they’ll be wearing masks and C- they won’t be sitting with strangers shoulder to shoulder is beyond me
Is that for Hampden or the Crucible? Sounds like a lot of shit to go through to watch Scotland get humped
Crucible
0 -
3 minutes ago, Michael W said:
Fake news!
Rumours started by us to take the heat off AZ.
1 -
32 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:
None of which explains at all why Hampden or Wembley can't also be full, given that the Euros are outdoors and over 2 months away.
Given the progress of our vaccination programme, we should have been testing the effectiveness of LFTs for allowing events weeks ago, instead of focusing on non-existant variants.
I'm also curious to know what has changed that makes them suitable for going to the snooker, but for everything else you should assume that a negative test means that you could still have it.
You have to prove that testing is useful to justify the spend. If it goes off without a hitch all hail the miracle of NHS Test and Trace lets launch another few billion at it.
Nothing at all to do with vaccinations of course.
ETA I'd be curious to understand the age demographic of your typical snooker fan. Is it popular among younger people that won't be vaccinated yet which maybe played a part in the decision to use it as a test event?
0 -
1 minute ago, peasy23 said:29 minutes ago, Left Back said:Is it not one of the test events for vaccination passports? You have to have a test before going to the venue and 5 days afterwards.
They're starting off in round one at 33% capacity and building up to full for the final.They didn't give any detail, but I assumed LFT and face masks would be standard.
It is LFT and face masks. you also have to check in to the venue using the NHS app.
You have to go to a testing centre either on the day or no earlier than the day before for a test and they post you one out to take 5 days after your attendance.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:
None of which explains at all why Hampden or Wembley can't also be full, given that the Euros are outdoors and over 2 months away.
Given the progress of our vaccination programme, we should have been testing the effectiveness of LFTs for allowing events weeks ago, instead of focusing on non-existant variants.
Not sure why you'd need testing to attend tbh. I don't think there's been any proper evidence of an outdoor gathering being a super-spreader event. Even when the Cheltenham festival last year became the medias pet football to kick around it was all supposition. None of it was evidence based.
0 -
5 minutes ago, peasy23 said:
Among all the chat about Euro crowds, report on BBC Breakfast this morning that the final of the World Snooker at the Crucible in just over 3 weeks time is to be played in front of a full house with no social distancing.
Is it not one of the test events for vaccination passports? You have to have a test before going to the venue and 5 days afterwards.
They're starting off in round one at 33% capacity and building up to full for the final.
1 -
3 hours ago, Bairnardo said:
I thought someone said the number can't actually rise tbh. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
This would make sense. More people than are allowed in have bought tickets. Something will have to be done to determine which ticket holders are actually allowed to see which games. This all takes time so there has to be a line in the sand somewhere.
0 -
11 minutes ago, ICTChris said:
Can’t deny his logic but is that entire discussion relevant to herd immunity? I’m not a virologist/epidemiologist or any kind of ologist but from what I’ve read herd immunity is 1-1/R0. It has nothing to do with R. Calculating Herd Immunity Threshold seems like very simple maths to me.
0 -
10 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:
The R0 of Covid-19 is lower than 4.5, though.
Latest studies and estimates place the R0 somewhere between 1.4-3.9
Another article I can’t see but even if it was slightly below 3.9 to get you to the required immunity of 73.4% quoted in the article the big factor here is the 19% of people that can’t be vaccinated.
14% of that 19% having immunity as claimed by REACT doesn’t alter the fact it would still require over 90% of over 16’s to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.
1 -
15 minutes ago, Elixir said:
Modelling I can get behind. Yet we're still expected to put up with restrictions on our liberties and lives for an unspecified amount of time.
I can’t read the article for the details as it’s behind a paywall but I’m sceptical about this claim. I asked earlier today if anyone knew the projection about this earlier today and as no-one responded I did my own maths about it.
I’m not on my computer where I saved the results but I used an R0 of 4.5 (which I think was used in the Imperial model, the Warwick used 4.3) to calculate required amount of protection. Either of those numbers require more than 73.4% claimed that I can see in the bit of the article I can see (77-78% if I remember).
if you then factor in the 14% from the REACT study that have immunity through infection that drops down from 78%. You then have to factor in the 19% of people in the country that are under 16 and ineligible for a vaccine and we can’t be anywhere near even 73% of the population having immunity. It would require well over 90% of over 16’s to be vaccinated.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:
Nuances aside, the relative risk is still higher from flying than it is from the vaccine.
Anyone taking the vaccine for the sole reason of being allowed to go on holiday should be more concerned with the flight if it is a blood clot they are specifically worried about.
There’s probably many things that people do frequently without a second thought that carry a far higher risk of death than blood clots caused by AZ.
1 -
10 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:
Fair play to those willing to risk a blood clot for a suntan and to cut some shapes in Benidorm.
Do people cut shapes in Benidorm? I thought they went to Ibiza for that kind of thing.
0 -
1 hour ago, super_carson said:
You'd hope that that would also apply to the start of the domestic season in July as an absolute minimum. Not that I think that that's necessarily right, but given the over-cautious attitude of the SG it may be realistic. Off the top of my head, 25% capacity in grounds probably wouldn't affect that many clubs outside the Premiership significantly. Still shite though.
Falkirk fans will likely take issue with this.
2 -
1 minute ago, Billy Jean King said:
UK ditching AZ for under 30s dearie me !!!
where you seeing this? BBC News still on the EMA briefing so I assumed the UK one hadn't started yet.
0 -
EMA say it's safe but leaving it up to the member states what they decide to do.
0 -
Just now, Rugster said:
By the way how often are the uk government late for their own briefings!?
were waiting to see what the EMA said imo. Probably had two briefings ready to go.
0 -
Just now, Rugster said:
Benefits of AZ outweigh risks says EMA. Blood clot is possible side effect.
EMA open up with a big thumbs up. Go on to say list them as side effects. doesn't sound like they're pulling it. Doubt the MHRA will either.
0 -
56 minutes ago, superbigal said:
Vaccines are not about protecting the individual though. It is about protecting all of us.
So the risk for and against an individual being vaccinated should also take into account how many people the unvaccinated could kill.
Relatively very few. the cohorts that make up 99% of deaths will have all been done (regardless of age as the vulnerable younger people have already been completed). The vaccines claim 100% efficacy against hospitalisation so you would have to deduce that's 100% against death as well. This leaves a very small percentage vulnerable. I'd suspect probably more than the potential number of deaths due to blood clots though so the lesser of two evils is probably to bash on with the vaccines.
0 -
2 minutes ago, TheScarf said:
Saw something yesterday on Twitter that said anyone born before 1955 automatically thinks they were actually in WW2.
I assume because they correlate it with rationing ending in 1954.
1 -
2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:
What's the issue with AZ vaccine here? I've ignored most of the greeting about it not being suitable as I thought that was mostly political bullshit but it's worrying if this is actually going to set us back months.
Potentially causes rare blood clots, in a miniscule amount of people.
0
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
in The General Nonsense Forum
Posted
Wales accelerating their release of lockdown. Not much but better than nothing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56680593