https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ests-studyBoys more at risk from Pfizer jab side-effect than Covid, suggests study
US researchers say teenagers are more likely to get vaccine-related myocarditis than end up in hospital with Covid
A scheme for vaccine passports for entry to nightclubs and large events in England will not go ahead, the health secretary has said.
Sajid Javid told the BBC: "We shouldn't be doing things for the sake of it."
He said the government had looked at the evidence, adding: "I'm pleased to say we will not be going ahead."
It was thought the plan, which came under criticism from venues and some MPs, would be introduced at the end of this month
It's been awhile since they performed a U-Turn .....SaintK wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:09 am No vaccine passports in EnglandA scheme for vaccine passports for entry to nightclubs and large events in England will not go ahead, the health secretary has said.
Sajid Javid told the BBC: "We shouldn't be doing things for the sake of it."
He said the government had looked at the evidence, adding: "I'm pleased to say we will not be going ahead."
It was thought the plan, which came under criticism from venues and some MPs, would be introduced at the end of this month
Print the passport onto each face mask. Then get their PPE cronies to supply them.fishfoodie wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:13 amIt's been awhile since they performed a U-Turn .....SaintK wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:09 am No vaccine passports in EnglandA scheme for vaccine passports for entry to nightclubs and large events in England will not go ahead, the health secretary has said.
Sajid Javid told the BBC: "We shouldn't be doing things for the sake of it."
He said the government had looked at the evidence, adding: "I'm pleased to say we will not be going ahead."
It was thought the plan, which came under criticism from venues and some MPs, would be introduced at the end of this month
.... and they'll probably do the complete 360 on this come flu season
dpedin wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:48 am Just back from a few days in England and I was amazed at the lack of masks being worn compared to up here. Supermarkets, shops, pubs, etc barely saw anyone wearing one. Didnt see staff in any of these places wearing one. Looks like the pandemic is over and the Blonde Bumblecunt was right ... 100 deaths a day/700 a week/35k+ a year is an acceptable price to pay.
Noticed a few less masks than before - would say most people still wearing them indoors. Have to admit I don't bother with the 'mask on mask off' routine walking to a table in pub or restaurant anymore.dpedin wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:48 am Just back from a few days in England and I was amazed at the lack of masks being worn compared to up here. Supermarkets, shops, pubs, etc barely saw anyone wearing one. Didnt see staff in any of these places wearing one. Looks like the pandemic is over and the Blonde Bumblecunt was right ... 100 deaths a day/700 a week/35k+ a year is an acceptable price to pay.
Wales 17,282 545.2
Scotland 44,741 818.5
Northern Ireland 10,757 567.5
England 193,771 342.7
Agreed - the Scottish figure reflects the schools in Scotland going back earlier than in England. Rates astronomically high in younger school age groups - is was over 2,000 per week per 100k at one point! I have already had a couple of mates cancel nights out as their kids have come back from school with covid and they don't want to spread covid further. I suspect the English case rates will increase over next few weeks as the impact of schools and rates in kids increases.tc27 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:11 amNoticed a few less masks than before - would say most people still wearing them indoors. Have to admit I don't bother with the 'mask on mask off' routine walking to a table in pub or restaurant anymore.dpedin wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:48 am Just back from a few days in England and I was amazed at the lack of masks being worn compared to up here. Supermarkets, shops, pubs, etc barely saw anyone wearing one. Didnt see staff in any of these places wearing one. Looks like the pandemic is over and the Blonde Bumblecunt was right ... 100 deaths a day/700 a week/35k+ a year is an acceptable price to pay.
It should be noted the case rate in Scotland is currently over double that in England so perhaps people have a different perception of where the pandemic is at?
Wales 17,282 545.2
Scotland 44,741 818.5
Northern Ireland 10,757 567.5
England 193,771 342.7
Yeah people have given up, been very noticeable the last few weeks. Still not enough messaging on ventilation anywhere, really don't get why.dpedin wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:48 am Just back from a few days in England and I was amazed at the lack of masks being worn compared to up here. Supermarkets, shops, pubs, etc barely saw anyone wearing one. Didnt see staff in any of these places wearing one. Looks like the pandemic is over and the Blonde Bumblecunt was right ... 100 deaths a day/700 a week/35k+ a year is an acceptable price to pay.
Case rates are much higher in Scotland than in England, so I'm not sure why or what you are being amazed about.dpedin wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:48 am Just back from a few days in England and I was amazed at the lack of masks being worn compared to up here. Supermarkets, shops, pubs, etc barely saw anyone wearing one. Didnt see staff in any of these places wearing one. Looks like the pandemic is over and the Blonde Bumblecunt was right ... 100 deaths a day/700 a week/35k+ a year is an acceptable price to pay.
I think I’ll continue wearing one on public transport for a while, more as a courtesy really.Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:39 am There's only two places I'll still make sure to take a mask - the tube as it is still technically compulsory and basically common sense and the supermarket as it's an unventilated space with lots of older people around.
Wearing one outside or on the journey from the pub door to a table just seems silly (and always was).
I’ve always thought wearing one to the toilet was actually sensible - it’s one of the few places a mask protects you rather than it protecting other people. Virus is often carried by human waste, and where there’s a damp, poorly ventilated environment you’re more likely to have the possibility of droplet transmission. Masks protect you a bit from droplets (but not aerosol).Slick wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:19 amI think I’ll continue wearing one on public transport for a while, more as a courtesy really.Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:39 am There's only two places I'll still make sure to take a mask - the tube as it is still technically compulsory and basically common sense and the supermarket as it's an unventilated space with lots of older people around.
Wearing one outside or on the journey from the pub door to a table just seems silly (and always was).
Re pubs, it’s daft having to wear one to go to the toilet but you should still have to wear one going to the bar IMO, bit unfair on staff otherwise
If you have to ask ... you already know the answer !Slick wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:23 pm Took the boy to his swimming lesson on Saturday and sat next to a mum who took her mask off. Anyway, she told me they had just come back from holiday 4 days before but their PCR tests hadn’t shown up in the post so they were just getting on with it. Her husband hadn’t been feeling well but was going to work because it was just a cold.
Yeah, you can guess the rest. FFS
Do I need to go and get a test now?
Yeah I do… wedding anniversary lunch off tomorrow thenfishfoodie wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:51 pmIf you have to ask ... you already know the answer !Slick wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:23 pm Took the boy to his swimming lesson on Saturday and sat next to a mum who took her mask off. Anyway, she told me they had just come back from holiday 4 days before but their PCR tests hadn’t shown up in the post so they were just getting on with it. Her husband hadn’t been feeling well but was going to work because it was just a cold.
Yeah, you can guess the rest. FFS
Do I need to go and get a test now?
Oh; & does Pretty Vacant have a number you can report fuckwits to ?
Went shopping yesterday, in our local Waitrose, everyone was wearing a mask, not one maskless face. Every shop I've been into in the last month has been the same - everyone putting on masks as they go in and removing them as they leave. Haven't been to the local Asda for months, so I don't kow what it's like there, we always get deliveries from them and use Waitrose to top up once or twice a week.Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:23 amYeah people have given up, been very noticeable the last few weeks. Still not enough messaging on ventilation anywhere, really don't get why.dpedin wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:48 am Just back from a few days in England and I was amazed at the lack of masks being worn compared to up here. Supermarkets, shops, pubs, etc barely saw anyone wearing one. Didnt see staff in any of these places wearing one. Looks like the pandemic is over and the Blonde Bumblecunt was right ... 100 deaths a day/700 a week/35k+ a year is an acceptable price to pay.
Mask wearing has dropped slightly at my local Waitrose. Down to around 90% of customers I estimate. The staff aren't wearing them.Ovals wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:09 pmWent shopping yesterday, in our local Waitrose, everyone was wearing a mask, not one maskless face. Every shop I've been into in the last month has been the same - everyone putting on masks as they go in and removing them as they leave. Haven't been to the local Asda for months, so I don't kow what it's like there, we always get deliveries from them and use Waitrose to top up once or twice a week.Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:23 amYeah people have given up, been very noticeable the last few weeks. Still not enough messaging on ventilation anywhere, really don't get why.dpedin wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:48 am Just back from a few days in England and I was amazed at the lack of masks being worn compared to up here. Supermarkets, shops, pubs, etc barely saw anyone wearing one. Didnt see staff in any of these places wearing one. Looks like the pandemic is over and the Blonde Bumblecunt was right ... 100 deaths a day/700 a week/35k+ a year is an acceptable price to pay.
In his interviews this morning Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccine deployment minister, said children aged 12 to 15 would be able to decide to get vaccinated against the wishes of their parents - provided they were deemed competent to do so by a clinician. He told Sky News:
Children will have a leaflet that they can share with their parents and of course we have a consent form that will go to them either electronically and, in some schools physically, to their parents, and their parents will then read all the information, have to give consent if the child is to be vaccinated.
On the very rare occasion where there is a difference of opinion between the parent and the 12-15 year-old, where the parent for example doesn’t want to give consent but the 12-15 year-old wants to have the vaccine, then the first step is the clinician will bring the parent and the child together to see whether they can reach consent.
If that is not possible, then if the child is deemed to be competent - and this has been around since the ‘80s for all vaccination programmes in schools - if the child is deemed to be competent, Gillick competence as it is referred to, then the child can have the vaccine.
They are not competent, stick it in their armsSaintK wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:31 am This is going to be somewhat divisive?In his interviews this morning Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccine deployment minister, said children aged 12 to 15 would be able to decide to get vaccinated against the wishes of their parents - provided they were deemed competent to do so by a clinician. He told Sky News:
Children will have a leaflet that they can share with their parents and of course we have a consent form that will go to them either electronically and, in some schools physically, to their parents, and their parents will then read all the information, have to give consent if the child is to be vaccinated.
On the very rare occasion where there is a difference of opinion between the parent and the 12-15 year-old, where the parent for example doesn’t want to give consent but the 12-15 year-old wants to have the vaccine, then the first step is the clinician will bring the parent and the child together to see whether they can reach consent.
If that is not possible, then if the child is deemed to be competent - and this has been around since the ‘80s for all vaccination programmes in schools - if the child is deemed to be competent, Gillick competence as it is referred to, then the child can have the vaccine.
As with all these issues it's just a little more complicated than that . I would have thought that the Gillick principle would apply in this caseSlick wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:35 amThey are not competent, stick it in their armsSaintK wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:31 am This is going to be somewhat divisive?In his interviews this morning Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccine deployment minister, said children aged 12 to 15 would be able to decide to get vaccinated against the wishes of their parents - provided they were deemed competent to do so by a clinician. He told Sky News:
Children will have a leaflet that they can share with their parents and of course we have a consent form that will go to them either electronically and, in some schools physically, to their parents, and their parents will then read all the information, have to give consent if the child is to be vaccinated.
On the very rare occasion where there is a difference of opinion between the parent and the 12-15 year-old, where the parent for example doesn’t want to give consent but the 12-15 year-old wants to have the vaccine, then the first step is the clinician will bring the parent and the child together to see whether they can reach consent.
If that is not possible, then if the child is deemed to be competent - and this has been around since the ‘80s for all vaccination programmes in schools - if the child is deemed to be competent, Gillick competence as it is referred to, then the child can have the vaccine.
Well yeah. That’s what happens in science - as the evidence changes you change your view. So far as I understand it (although this could be wrong) at the start of the pandemic, we were prepared for a flu pandemic so in the absence of other evidence, we proceeded on that basis. Flu spreads largely through surface contact. As we learnt a bit more, it became more evident that it was spreading through some form of airborne spread. At first that was thought to be droplets, then droplets and aerosols. That’s when mask became a lot more relevant.Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:33 am Not the main point with masks but there was a very interesting shift around last summer from people 'in the know' who went from masks don't work to masks being the crucial preventive measure. We'll probably largely pretend it didn't happen but it absolutely did and I find the psychology of it interesting.
There is also the issue that, at the start of the pandemic when the NHS and care homes were struggling to obtain PPE (including surgical masks) in sufficient numbers, telling the general public to also wear masks would have only led to more shortages. It was clearly more important to make sure masks were available for those that needed them most, and this allied to (at the time) limited evidence of their efficacy in reducing the spread amongst the general population, meant that there was no point in promoting their general use.Biffer wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:25 amWell yeah. That’s what happens in science - as the evidence changes you change your view. So far as I understand it (although this could be wrong) at the start of the pandemic, we were prepared for a flu pandemic so in the absence of other evidence, we proceeded on that basis. Flu spreads largely through surface contact. As we learnt a bit more, it became more evident that it was spreading through some form of airborne spread. At first that was thought to be droplets, then droplets and aerosols. That’s when mask became a lot more relevant.Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:33 am Not the main point with masks but there was a very interesting shift around last summer from people 'in the know' who went from masks don't work to masks being the crucial preventive measure. We'll probably largely pretend it didn't happen but it absolutely did and I find the psychology of it interesting.
Certainly the Tory ultras are.Dogbert wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:20 amAs with all these issues it's just a little more complicated than that . I would have thought that the Gillick principle would apply in this case
"Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment." , and I suspect that the reverse applies , and only in the case "If a young person refuses treatment, which may lead to their death or a severe permanent injury, their decision can be overruled by the Court of Protection." - and I don't see that applying here
I would have thought that every child over the age of 12 would have be deemed to meet that criteria
I they refuse to have the vaccine , what are you going to do , strap them down / dart them ?
I suspect that this will turn out to be a non issue , but something the MSM will get all hot and bothered by
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, said he was worried about teenagers being pressurised into getting vaccinated. He said:
The pressure will grow on the child. There is no way of legislating for this greater good concept that says, “The school may be in trouble, and your class may be in deep difficulty, if you do not take the vaccine.” I simply say ... this is a real problem for us. It will lead to disputes in families and real problems about children’s mental health in the opposite direction, as they are put under pressure. I wonder whether [Zahawi] and the government will think again about this.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said:
I find what [Zahawi] has announced this evening deeply troubling. I think it will pit parents against parents and parents against teachers, with a poor child stuck in the middle wondering what to do. There will be very little benefit to the child, and there is a lack of long-term data on the potential harm. However, what concerns me above all is that the Gillick doctrine of treating children without parental consent will become the norm for a range of medical procedures.
Can you point to any research into coronavirus spread prior to January 2020?Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 am I'm not convinced the science actually changed, maybe what we paid attention to did. See the SEA approach compared to ours. As I say, we'll pretend it didn't happen but interesting nonetheless.
The same scientists who backed the British government's "herd immunity" plan?Lobby wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:45 amThere is also the issue that, at the start of the pandemic when the NHS and care homes were struggling to obtain PPE (including surgical masks) in sufficient numbers, telling the general public to also wear masks would have only led to more shortages. It was clearly more important to make sure masks were available for those that needed them most, and this allied to (at the time) limited evidence of their efficacy in reducing the spread amongst the general population, meant that there was no point in promoting their general use.Biffer wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:25 amWell yeah. That’s what happens in science - as the evidence changes you change your view. So far as I understand it (although this could be wrong) at the start of the pandemic, we were prepared for a flu pandemic so in the absence of other evidence, we proceeded on that basis. Flu spreads largely through surface contact. As we learnt a bit more, it became more evident that it was spreading through some form of airborne spread. At first that was thought to be droplets, then droplets and aerosols. That’s when mask became a lot more relevant.Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:33 am Not the main point with masks but there was a very interesting shift around last summer from people 'in the know' who went from masks don't work to masks being the crucial preventive measure. We'll probably largely pretend it didn't happen but it absolutely did and I find the psychology of it interesting.
They've been tracking coronavirus infections for nearly 100 years now. Human coronavirus has been known since 1960's. SARS-1 and MERS are two of the more dangerous ones to pop up before the current covid 19.Biffer wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:22 amCan you point to any research into coronavirus spread prior to January 2020?Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 am I'm not convinced the science actually changed, maybe what we paid attention to did. See the SEA approach compared to ours. As I say, we'll pretend it didn't happen but interesting nonetheless.
There’s been research into coronaviruses, their genetics, the diseases they cause. Anything about their spread and infection routes?Uncle fester wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:18 pmThey've been tracking coronavirus infections for nearly 100 years now. Human coronavirus has been known since 1960's. SARS-1 and MERS are two of the more dangerous ones to pop up before the current covid 19.Biffer wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:22 amCan you point to any research into coronavirus spread prior to January 2020?Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 am I'm not convinced the science actually changed, maybe what we paid attention to did. See the SEA approach compared to ours. As I say, we'll pretend it didn't happen but interesting nonetheless.
In America, mask wearing instantly became a political thing. In the UK, the government scientists recommended not wearing them. Meanwhile in the rest of the world people started wearing masks without any issues.Uncle fester wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:03 pmThe same scientists who backed the British government's "herd immunity" plan?Lobby wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:45 amThere is also the issue that, at the start of the pandemic when the NHS and care homes were struggling to obtain PPE (including surgical masks) in sufficient numbers, telling the general public to also wear masks would have only led to more shortages. It was clearly more important to make sure masks were available for those that needed them most, and this allied to (at the time) limited evidence of their efficacy in reducing the spread amongst the general population, meant that there was no point in promoting their general use.Biffer wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:25 am
Well yeah. That’s what happens in science - as the evidence changes you change your view. So far as I understand it (although this could be wrong) at the start of the pandemic, we were prepared for a flu pandemic so in the absence of other evidence, we proceeded on that basis. Flu spreads largely through surface contact. As we learnt a bit more, it became more evident that it was spreading through some form of airborne spread. At first that was thought to be droplets, then droplets and aerosols. That’s when mask became a lot more relevant.
Yeah, they were pretty impartial and led by science alright.
Yeah maybe I'm being parochial (haven't left the country since the pandemic anyway). However 'masks don't work' was the sincerely held position of much of the 'smarter' end of British life, until it wasn't. No dig at anyone, I just find the psychology interesting.Calculon wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:55 amIn America, mask wearing instantly became a political thing. In the UK, the government scientists recommended not wearing them. Meanwhile in the rest of the world people started wearing masks without any issues.Uncle fester wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:03 pmThe same scientists who backed the British government's "herd immunity" plan?Lobby wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:45 am
There is also the issue that, at the start of the pandemic when the NHS and care homes were struggling to obtain PPE (including surgical masks) in sufficient numbers, telling the general public to also wear masks would have only led to more shortages. It was clearly more important to make sure masks were available for those that needed them most, and this allied to (at the time) limited evidence of their efficacy in reducing the spread amongst the general population, meant that there was no point in promoting their general use.
Yeah, they were pretty impartial and led by science alright.
Neither did Japan but wearing masks has long been a common practice here for colds, hay fever, etc. etc.Calculon wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:03 am Oh, I agree with you, and I also find it interesting. Not only why it changed in the UK but also why it was different in the first place
Actually Sweden never mandated masks.
