O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[ramAnag]

It wasnt a debate, but rather a question. But as a sidenote, what form of identification did they ask you to bring with you to prove that you are indeed "Mr rA" as opposed to an old looking 43 year old history teacher from Littleover Community School pretending to be you?

Do please remember that you instigated this ‘waste of keystrokes’, not I...but I think you’ll find debates invariably start with a question and that you’re attempting to reignite a previous argument.
I see you’ve been Googling Derby schools again, but as it happens...I haven’t been asked to provide any type of identification, I imagine the usual ‘DoB and first line of address’ details will suffice. Maybe we’re just more trustworthy up here than in darkest Surrey.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Not reigniting any argument, there is no argument here - just affording you an opportunity to put your money where your mouth was and relinquish your jab in favour of a key worker. Something for your ideals and your conscience to determine

You seemed keen enough earlier for others to make this sacrifice, and now you have got the first chance of those among us to act in a principled way. If no ID is required, it should be simplicity itself to let someone know your date of birth and address, and give him or her your appointment.

I don't blame you for putting yourself before the key workers, I'd do the same

[ramAnag]

Not reigniting any argument, there is no argument here - just affording you an opportunity to put your money where your mouth was and relinquish your jab in favour of a key worker. Something for your ideals and your conscience to determine

You seemed keen enough earlier for others to make this sacrifice, and now you have got the first chance of those among us to act in a principled way. If no ID is required, it should be simplicity itself to let someone know your date of birth and address, and give him or her your appointment.

I don't blame you for putting yourself before the key workers, I'd do the same

I honestly don’t know what’s happened to you. Read back what you’ve written, it’s just complete tripe.
My position is completely unchanged...and my ideals and conscience don’t come into it.

One last time...if, perish the thought, I was running the system I would make a strong case for ‘front line’ workers to be vaccinated before 65+ year olds with no known health issues...but I’m not, and all you’re suggesting is that a) I break the law, b) I more or less guarantee never being vaccinated myself and c) I screw up the whole system.

Run along and stop being so ridiculous.

[ramAnag]

Much more disturbing to me, AF, is the post laughing at the German/French/Dutch doubts over the AstraZeneca vaccine.

I don’t know to what extent those doubts are well founded or if it is just more political posturing and I doubt any of us do, but the consequences for the UK are deeply worrying if there is any foundation to the rumours of lack of efficacy for the 65+ cohorts.

Anything but funny imo.

[Trickytreesreds]

Much more disturbing to me, AF, is the post laughing at the German/French/Dutch doubts over the AstraZeneca vaccine.

I don’t know to what extent those doubts are well founded or if it is just more political posturing and I doubt any of us do, but the consequences for the UK are deeply worrying if there is any foundation to the rumours of lack of efficacy for the 65+ cohorts.

Anything but funny imo.

Obviously you are on about my post, but to snotty to mention that.
I am laughing because these comments are unfounded, without proof.
Also, if it doesn't bloody work. Why have they made such a **** storm out of this to get hold of it?
So it is funny, just for the pure hypocrital behaviour of an organisation that still won't admit it ****ed up.
The French vaccine was the preferred choice, it didn't work. Get over it.

[ramAnag]

Obviously you are on about my post, but to snotty to mention that.
I am laughing because these comments are unfounded, without proof.
Also, if it doesn't bloody work. Why have they made such a **** storm out of this to get hold of it?
So it is funny, just for the pure hypocrital behaviour of an organisation that still won't admit it ****ed up.
The French vaccine was the preferred choice, it didn't work. Get over it.

I’ll temporarily break my rule, TTR.

I’m not ‘too snotty’ at all...it’s just that experience suggests that exchanges between us always degenerate into personal abuse and you then posting a collection of ‘Right’ thinking rubbish. I’m not interested in either so I just don’t, usually, respond.

My point is that the doubts expressed regarding the Oxford (AZ) vaccine shouldn’t be a source of amusement. As you know I trust very little of what our current Government says and I don’t make much more of an exception for those who dominate the EU...they’re all politicians with their own agendas imo.

At the moment there seems to be a great deal of disagreement about the efficacy of vaccines in relation to a) the age group they are being delivered to, b) the time allowed between doses and c) whether different vaccines can or cannot be used in conjunction with each other.

I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do understand, politically, why both UK and European politicians should be adopting the stances they are. That, imo, should be a source of concern, not amusement.

P.S. Swale, just as a poi...I know five people who have been vaccinated to date...all have so far received the Oxford vaccine...not out of any sort of choice, but because that’s what was on offer. I’d hope you know me well enough to understand that my friendship group wouldn’t include anyone stupid enough to insist on the ‘home grown English’ version.

[swaledale]

Much more disturbing to me, AF, is the post laughing at the German/French/Dutch doubts over the AstraZeneca vaccine.

I don’t know to what extent those doubts are well founded or if it is just more political posturing and I doubt any of us do, but the consequences for the UK are deeply worrying if there is any foundation to the rumours of lack of efficacy for the 65+ cohorts.

Anything but funny imo.

Why? Given that the Pfizer vaccine is the one being administered in greater numbers at the moment. In terms of the Astrazenica effectiveness in 0ver 65's, this is mainly down to lack of data in that age group.

But it is very unlikely that the vaccine effectiveness is going to suddenly change based on age profile, if its effective up to age 65, which most of the curent data shows it is, then what would change post that age?

Mind you it would be poetic justice if those over 65 who waited for the "British" vaccine suddenly found it wasn't effective for their age group!

The issue for some European regulators is that they think not enough of the AZ trial participants aged over 65 caught the virus to make conclusions on the vaccine's effectiveness. This is because only two of the 660 people in that age group were infected.

Other companies, like Pfizer, included more older people earlier on in their trials, so have more data available.

MHRA advice says that the number of older people contracting the virus in the AZ trial was "too few to draw conclusions on efficacy".

So, the French, German and other agencies are focusing on this fact.

"Current evidence does not suggest any lack of protection against Covid-19 in people aged 65 or over who receive the Covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca," the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) chief executive, Dr June Raine, said in a statement.

"The data we have show that the vaccine produces a strong immune response in the over-65s, and that it is safe."

[Andy_Faber]

Much more disturbing to me, AF, is the post laughing at the German/French/Dutch doubts over the AstraZeneca vaccine.

I don’t know to what extent those doubts are well founded or if it is just more political posturing and I doubt any of us do, but the consequences for the UK are deeply worrying if there is any foundation to the rumours of lack of efficacy for the 65+ cohorts.

Anything but funny imo.

Yes at least that’s a scientific judgement but have you read any of the science? The U.K. stance is based on a less risk averse POV than the others but to me it’s far from racey. I wouldn’t go for deeply worrying as a description personally.

[Andy_Faber]

Oh here we go again, old white male bristling because they fail to understand the concept of racism, thought you'd have worked out how foolish that makes you look, though I guess your in good company with others on here.

I see your rather narrow nationalistic attitude is coming to the surface, never did trust people who displayed such simplistic tendencies, they tend to be narrow minded individuals easily able to be persuaded by cheap so called patriotic tropes, that in reality are based on some unjustified sense of superiority.

I find the concept of dumb old people locked in the past, under the illusion that Britain is somehow superior to "any other country" in the world as utterly ridiculous and the only possible sane response is to laugh at these people. I mean how stupid to delay having something thats possibly going to save your life, just because it isn't British. If your that dumb, well you won't be missed frankly.

I was referring to one particular instance, which I thought hilarious, there are others but you know I find old white ****s rather funny!

Especially old white ****s that think that phrase is in any way racist!

As for your suggestion to "get with the programme", you can be a blind nationalist, but please don't insult me with your pathetic jibes.

As for AstraZenic a being "British" yeah well I suggest you actually look into the facts, its a collaboration involving many nationalities, but I guess those facts don't suit your narrow perspective on such matters. Which is why your puzzled when I don't swallow the nationalistic tripe thats pumped out for the benefit of the ignorant proles.

Sorry, I appear to have gotten under your skin again.

[swaledale]

Sorry, I appear to have gotten under your skin again.

Wrong again you never get uder my skin, you just make me laugh!