O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[ramAnag]

You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the EMA and I simply don’t know enough to argue.

My only point is that you began your argument by questioning whether, as participants in the EMA, we would have made as much progress with vaccination as we have. You then used this as a potential criticism of Starmer because he had, according to you, backed our membership of the EMA. When asked when this was you came up with ‘four years ago’ in 2017.

In all fairness, I don’t think a statement made 3-4 years ago, about our possible membership of the EMA, can be used as criticism within the context of a pandemic which only emerged 12-14 months ago.

[Ram59]

You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the EMA and I simply don’t know enough to argue.

My only point is that you began your argument by questioning whether, as participants in the EMA, we would have made as much progress with vaccination as we have. You then used this as a potential criticism of Starmer because he had, according to you, backed our membership of the EMA. When asked when this was you came up with ‘four years ago’ in 2017.

In all fairness, I don’t think a statement made 3-4 years ago, about our possible membership of the EMA, can be used as criticism within the context of a pandemic which only emerged 12-14 months ago.

But had he been successful with his argument 4 years, it is likely that we wouldn't have gone down this successful, to date, vaccination programme. At some time in the last 4 years, he's changed his mind, I suspect that's likely to have happened quite recently.

On another side note, the Guardian/Observer is usually left leaning and pro EU, but the article yesterday dragged itself down to the level of the Mail or the Express. They were actually promoting that the EU's vaccination programme has been a success and qualified that it was better than that of the UK, quoting that Denmark had proportionally delivered more second doses than the UK. Any creditability that publication had, just went out of the window, for me.

[Andy_Faber]

On another side note, the Guardian/Observer is usually left leaning and pro EU, but the article yesterday dragged itself down to the level of the Mail or the Express. They were actually promoting that the EU's vaccination programme has been a success and qualified that it was better than that of the UK, quoting that Denmark had proportionally delivered more second doses than the UK. Any creditability that publication had, just went out of the window, for me.

Yes I read that and thought it was a bit of desperation/sour grapes

I also read that The French are now spinning their pathetic effort as being superior to UK’s on the basis that a greater percentage of their population (that have had at least one jab) have had two jabs, conveniently ignoring that their base number is minuscule compared to U.K. That REALLY is desperate on the part of les frogs

Meanwhile, UKPLC power on

[Ram59]

Yes I read that and thought it was a bit of desperation/sour grapes

I also read that The French are now spinning their pathetic effort as being superior to UK’s on the basis that a greater percentage of their population (that have had at least one jab) have had two jabs, conveniently ignoring that their base number is minuscule compared to U.K. That REALLY is desperate on the part of les frogs

Meanwhile, UKPLC power on

Talking about the French, it was interesting to see that their HAT authority has recommended giving only one dose to those who have had covid, at a stage between 3 and 6 months after testing positive.

Interesting on 2 fronts, firstly, the theory behind it sounds plausible and should be investigated, basically comparing the immunity gained from having the virus to the immunity gained from having the first dose. Secondly, the fact that they feel you should wait 3 months (12 weeks) after testing positive, before giving the second dose, which sort of backs up the UK's strategy, attacked by the EU.

It also throws up another potential problem though, could 2 doses be too much for people who already have immunity from previously having the virus? I ask this from previous experience, my father nearly died from TB before my birth and I was inoculated as a baby, when it came to having the jab as a ****ager, I had a positive reaction to the test and shouldn't have had another shot. The doctor was in a bad mood that day and ignored my protestations and gave me the jab, which I suffered quite a bad reaction to and ended up going to hospital, to check if the overdose had given me TB. I don't suppose any investigation has yet looked into this.

[Andy_Faber]

Talking about the French, it was interesting to see that their HAT authority has recommended giving only one dose to those who have had covid, at a stage between 3 and 6 months after testing positive.

Interesting on 2 fronts, firstly, the theory behind it sounds plausible and should be investigated, basically comparing the immunity gained from having the virus to the immunity gained from having the first dose. Secondly, the fact that they feel you should wait 3 months (12 weeks) after testing positive, before giving the second dose, which sort of backs up the UK's strategy, attacked by the EU.

It also throws up another potential problem though, could 2 doses be too much for people who already have immunity from previously having the virus? I ask this from previous experience, my father nearly died from TB before my birth and I was inoculated as a baby, when it came to having the jab as a ****ager, I had a positive reaction to the test and shouldn't have had another shot. The doctor was in a bad mood that day and ignored my protestations and gave me the jab, which I suffered quite a bad reaction to and ended up going to hospital, to check if the overdose had given me TB. I don't suppose any investigation has yet looked into this.

Yes the interaction of a proper dose of Covid plus one or two jabs needs investigation, haven't heard that anyone is doing so.

[swaledale]

Talking about the French, it was interesting to see that their HAT authority has recommended giving only one dose to those who have had covid, at a stage between 3 and 6 months after testing positive.

Interesting on 2 fronts, firstly, the theory behind it sounds plausible and should be investigated, basically comparing the immunity gained from having the virus to the immunity gained from having the first dose. Secondly, the fact that they feel you should wait 3 months (12 weeks) after testing positive, before giving the second dose, which sort of backs up the UK's strategy, attacked by the EU.

It also throws up another potential problem though, could 2 doses be too much for people who already have immunity from previously having the virus? I ask this from previous experience, my father nearly died from TB before my birth and I was inoculated as a baby, when it came to having the jab as a ****ager, I had a positive reaction to the test and shouldn't have had another shot. The doctor was in a bad mood that day and ignored my protestations and gave me the jab, which I suffered quite a bad reaction to and ended up going to hospital, to check if the overdose had given me TB. I don't suppose any investigation has yet looked into this.

From what I ahve read, the Covid vaccine does not contain the live virus, in this it differs from some of the older vaccines such as for TB, measles etc, so the issue of "overdosing" on Covid does not arise.

[MadAmster]

From what I ahve read, the Covid vaccine does not contain the live virus, in this it differs from some of the older vaccines such as for TB, measles etc, so the issue of "overdosing" on Covid does not arise.

Correct. It contans a protein found in the "outer casing" of the virus. It is this protein which causes your immune system to create antibodies.

Taken from chop.edu

In the case of COVID-19, the important protein is the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The mRNA that codes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is taken up by cells called dendritic cells, which express the spike protein on the cell surface, travel to a local lymph node, and stimulate other cells of the immune system (B cells) to make antibodies. These antibodies protect us, so that if we are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the future, our immune system is ready and we don’t get sick. (See more about dendritic cells and the adaptive immune system in this animation.)

This raises questions:

1. Does it stop us getting infected? They don't know yet
2. Does it stop you infecting others? They don't know yet

The only thing they do know is that the data shows the vaccine will stop you getting sick to the point of having to be hospitalised.

[Trickytreesreds]

The only thing they do know is that the data shows the vaccine will stop you getting sick to the point of having to be hospitalised.

That's the key point for me.
If it means a few days on the sofa sick, fine. Being in hospital on a ventilator isn't fine.

Just like the flu every year, the country can get on with its life

[Geoff Parkstone]

You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the EMA and I simply don’t know enough to argue.

.

Never stopped you before

[ramAnag]

Never stopped you before

Lol...give you that one.

Andy and Ram...I don’t subscribe to any of this ‘our programme is bigger than yours’ nonsense...whether it comes from the UK, the EU, the Guardian...whoever. Neither do I support your own ‘UKPLC power on’ and ‘desperate on the part of les frogs’ etc sentiments.

My view is that we should all be responding to what is a world wide problem on a world wide level. All other nationalistic point scoring is a little parochial and pathetic imo...wherever it originates. If that makes me a naive ‘snowflake’ I can live with that.

On a slight side note...good to see crowds back at the Test match in India. Terrible, imo, to see the almost complete lack of social distancing. When will we learn?