14 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

with a relative of mine infected and come out of lockdown with nothing other than very minor issues - not bad for someone in their mid-eighties with a number of health issues

That's fantastic - was it pre or post vaccination?  Could be a great advert for getting jabbed.

11 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Depends what you mean by 'definitive'. That COVID antibodies fall of over time after vaccination, and that level of antibodies is clearly defined as the current benchmark for vaccine effectiveness seems pretty definitive, until something better comes along.

It's the easily measurable benchmark but haven't we had the discussion on here that we don't have measurable antibodies in our blood forever for things we're vaccinated against though we do continue to be protected? 

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

More vaccinations with less vaccine may well be a better solution generally given the fall off in anti-bodies after 3-6 months

I know people who have been asked to send in blood for antibody testing but they aren't given specific results, only that they do or don't have antibodies.  We know that antibodies aren't the whole picture and I have yet to see anything definitive which says boosters are needed at all.  Would make more sense to me if we get to a stage where boosters are tailored to specific strains (like the flu vaccine) but is more of the same proven to be necessary or effective?

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

all for want of wearing a mask while in a supermarket or bus.

As far as I can see the majority still are - and I'm just back in from a supermarket trip.

Where I've got incredibly frustrated is the kneejerk reaction to the announcement it would no longer be compulsory as if we would go from hero to zero in one quick jump.  The situation whenever I was out and about was that around 15% never did, another 30% or so had them pulled down so didn't cover both nose and mouth.  Those are the people who will give them up completely.  You may say it was better than nothing and maybe so but in reality the change is not as great as it seems.  There never was 100% compliance.

Things are also different now in that many of us are vaccinated and even the not so good vaccines do seem to offer worthwhile protection.

TJ, the reason I used the term 'very vulnerable' is because I have huge empathy for those who are having lived with someone going through chemo  and little patience with the vast majority who declared themselves exempt from mask wearing.  They are the very people who could wear a mask but chose not to because they liked the idea of being special and above the rules.  There is a large crossover of those who would label themselves vulnerable when it suits them and do nothing to protect others while expecting others to protect them.

8 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Ah then you agree with the recent statement that those who are vulnerable (or sensible) should wait outside supermarkets until they figure out when there are few and especially few maskless in there if they cant - go home? and simply dont go on public transport and walk the 40 miles to work? or buy a car?

The very vulnerable, the immuno-compromised have always been at risk.  Pre Covid they and their families had to adjust lifestyle to protect them rather than restrict everyone else so yes, that was their 'normal' before this pandemic hit and it will continue to be the norm for some unless we eradicate all infectious disease.  The vulnerable won't stop being vulnerable post pandemic.

But nobody is stopping you wearing a mask.  Nor are they forcing you into crowded situations which you (and I mean a general 'you') find uncomfortable or deem dangerous.  These are personal choices which people have made from the start, it's just felt as though everyone has complied.  I have my own personal risk/reward criteria which is different from everyone else.  I am confident that whenever I do have prolonged, close contact with others I pose little if any threat.  For example, I have two gym sessions per week with two different PTs which require very close contact as I weight train and need them to spot me.  We don't wear masks.  I flow test before each one because I wouldn't endanger their livelihoods.  Are my workouts essential?  You wouldn't think so but they matter very much to me.  Should I be stopped because others are too nervous to venture out still?

You've sort of made my point TJ that you want others to be made to act as you deem appropriate for as long as you need to feel 100%  safe.  I see it differently because I know they never have.   Those who didn't want to wear a mask never have - they just claimed they were exempt and lord help anyone who dared to ask why.  I regard my safety as my responsibility and judge every situation on its merits.  Others will make their own choices.  They are not responsible for me.

12 hours ago, brassnecked said:

Thing is its pinging saying a contact, and the person has been nowhere near the actual case. they can be downstairs in the street  other side of a locked front door so no physical contact whatsoever, passing by, and if the app pings they say at T & T like Daleks Isolate isolate isolate.

They say they've made it less 'sensitive'.  You have to wonder how it was set to start with that you could get pinged from passing someone in the street or from one house to another.  It was yet another con job - they knew or they would have made isolation mandatory if it was working properly.

3 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

but they do want a sensible, supportable set of rules and mechanisms

I have a sensible set of rules and mechanisms. There is nothing to stop me taking whatever precautions I choose.

Wasn't deliberately ignoring it to start with.  Put the app on it to check in to a pub way back in April as we first started opening up.  Brought it home and left it on the windowsill.  Would have taken notice of being pinged at that point.  Had no reason to charge it for a while, then did, then realised what was happening and decided to let it run out of charge again. 

I have a burner phone which I leave on a windowsill where people walk by quite close.  Gets pinged regularly even though it hasn't been out of the house.

On 01/08/2021 at 11:17, unclebulgaria67 said:

Could you imagine the reaction in the UK if the same strict enforcement actions had been taken.

A frighteningly high proportion of the population have shown they're happy to have every aspect of their lives controlled and want the same for others.  Plenty wanted even more draconian measures with military enforcement.

I saw the news of the price hike for vaccines.  Is there any claim they'll use the revenue to make more available cheaper to poorer countries?

23 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Perhaps consider:

But still infectious, so will need to be isolated from other patients, largely all of whoms' immune systems will not be at their best?

True TJ.  It's more the effect such figures have on those who decry vaccination which bothers me.  That 40% of those in hospital 'with' Covid are vaccinated is one argument given against getting vaccinated for those looking for an excuse.  If it's only 15% of those admitted because of/needing treatment for Covid that's a very different picture.  The claim for the vaccine is that it will prevent severe disease or death and it seems to be living up to that claim.

4 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Also that people have gone in for non-virus reasons and when tested have turned out to be asymptomatic but positive.

 

I don't know where they're counted.

These are the people being included on the figures for hospitalised 'with' Covid.  That isn't the reason they're in hospital though and as you say, they aren't ill with Covid, just +ve. 

Apparently around 23% of those in hospital 'with' Covid are not there 'for' Covid but for other reasons.  I'd like to think this is one reason why the numbers of hospitalised cases among the vaccinated can seem high.  Does strike me as a ridiculous way of reporting the figures when they're trying to overcome vaccine hesitancy.  Feeds anti vaxxers arguments.  

21 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

If the information provided by Cummings in the BBC interview is accurate, I am not sure many people would be happy that it is acceptable to Boris for older people to die from Covid

Likely accurate but now historic in that more recent deaths don't appear to be mainly among the elderly and people are still reacting to whatever the BBC says they should day by day.  Yesterday's outrage is easy forgotten it seems when replaced by today's headline.

2 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

??

From Sept 2020

 

New legal duty to self-isolate comes into force today - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

---

From today, people in England will be required by law to self-isolate if they test positive or are contacted by NHS Test and Trace.

 

Correct.  If you are contacted by text or phone you must self-isolate.  Not the case if you are pinged by the app, that's advisory.

It always has been advice rather than law and it hasn't been a secret.

1 minute ago, tobyjugg2 said:

or will it have to be the electronic one where you have to give all your info  for resale (with no passes) to get one?

All you need is NHS login details for somebody who is vaccinated.  I'm sure there will be plenty happy to rent that out - everything has a price.

It does appear that the policy now is to shift blame.  How on earth they think mandatory vaccination for entry into certain venues/events is workable I really can't work out.  Best guess is that it's a ploy to 'encourage' greater take up and he can then announce later it won't be necessary.

If it goes ahead I will be interested to see the going rate for forged documents.

On 16/07/2021 at 21:08, honeybee13 said:

But the UK is happy to send people to France or a lot of other places, who might carry the more infectious Delta variant to those countries.

Anything I'm reading suggests the Beta variant is more likely than the Delta to get around vaccines.  I've seen reports that even the AZ is reasonably effective against severe disease with the Delta.

To be fair it could be weeks since I saw either Whitty or one of the spokesmen saying they had to be very careful with vaccine safety in children and the risks from Covid in youngsters weren't great enough to vaccinate. 

21 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

I think it highly unlikely that either the O/AZ or mRNA vaccines will kill more children than covid (even with the small announced UK figures) with that cost/'benefit getting higher with the new variants that seem more able to affect and harm kids

 

and the added benefit of any reduction in transmission, and hence mutation seems likely to add vastly to the benefit to kids, let alone their families

 

A political nightmare though

The benefit of reduction in transmission is undeniable TJ.  One catastrophic vaccine reaction would though be a PR nightmare.