Private Boaters

[grendel]

'could' to me, doesnt equate to scientific proof. i will be glad if that is correct, but there is too much guessing going around for my liking.if everyone starts doing as they like because they have had the vaccine, then where does that lead.

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, grendel said:

if everyone starts doing as they like because they have had the vaccine, then where does that lead.

It leads directly to the pub and the Broads!.

[Meantime]

Just now, grendel said:

'could' to me, doesnt equate to scientific proof. i will be glad if that is correct, but there is too much guessing going around for my liking.if everyone starts doing as they like because they have had the vaccine, then where does that lead.

I don't think anyone is suggesting people do as they like!!! No vaccine is 100% effective at stopping you catching the virus, so even if you do have the vaccine whilst there is a lot of virus around there is still a chance of getting very ill or dying. What is being suggested is that the vaccine is also proving to be effective at stopping the spread, thus it will become increasingly harder to be exposed to the virus and thus the risk of catching it, vaccinated or not, will be significantly reduced. The result are suggesting that the vaccine has an efficacy of 76% after the first dose, so that means there is a 24% chance of catching severe disease, however as time goes on, and if the vaccine is 67% effective at stopping the spread of the virus, then it will gradually become harder to be exposed to the virus. 

In an interview with Sky News on Sunday, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the impact of the vaccine on stopping transmission is "something that we have early evidence" of.

He added: "It looks like the first jab reduces your impact of transmitting the disease by about two-thirds, but we need more evidence on that as well. "

I don't read anywhere the suggestion that people can now start doing what they like!!

 

[Davydine]

15 hours ago, grendel said:

is there any hard evidence yet that having the jab stops you being able to spread the virus, if there is it hasnt reached me yrt.

 

I believe the early evidence shows that it does reduce transmission, as mentioned by Matt Hancock a few days ago... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56145392

I don't believe there was ever any evidence that the vaccine would not reduce transmission, but scientists like to deal in empirical evidence rather than speculate. Unfortunately I think the media rather misinterpreted that as “vaccine will not stop transmission “

[grendel]

but is that more 'could have' 'suggested that' and media reporting, unfortunately, like the scientist I need more than could have, suggests that and early evidence suggests, the problem is that by reporting this as they are, the people who have been vaccinated feel they are invulnerable now, and will start unconsciously relaxing their guard, forget to take a mask, meet up with some old friends, head down the pub, etc. until there is clear evidence that the vaccine is reducing the transmission, we should still be careful. ie scientific proof.

[Mouldy]

40 minutes ago, Cheesey69 said:

Covid or not these children are the future tax payers, scientists road workers etc. Learning to learn is a habit they can’t afford to lose. The input of education must be kept up and for these reasons I think the kids are the most important consideration 

Get that, but do we want to throw away the last months of sacrifice and effort??  If we have to delay the end of the restrictions due to a surge in infection rates, how many more businesses will fail, how many more people will suffer mental illness resulting from the impact of redundancy etc. and how many more people awaiting hospital treatment will have their appointments put back because of Covid.  BoJo keeps talking of a cautious approach, but the blanket approach of sending all schools back at the same time seems a bit like throwing caution to the wind.

[Cheesey69]

25 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Get that, but do we want to throw away the last months of sacrifice and effort??  If we have to delay the end of the restrictions due to a surge in infection rates, how many more businesses will fail, how many more people will suffer mental illness resulting from the impact of redundancy etc. and how many more people awaiting hospital treatment will have their appointments put back because of Covid.  BoJo keeps talking of a cautious approach, but the blanket approach of sending all schools back at the same time seems a bit like throwing caution to the wind.

Because what figure is acceptable? What price is life risky?

remember the slogans. Protect the NHS. 
once the pressure is off the nhs and infections get more manageable then that’s job done. It’s not to stop people dying. 
once the levels dip to around other seasonal illness job done. 
Because, and I know this first hand, the real race is to get our economic engine going fast. 
I suspect one of the bonuses of the injection is to enable the work force to work. 
A debt bigger than the world war 2’s, massive unemployment, uncertain world outlook, waiting nhs lists bigger and longer than ever and Uk infrastructure creaking all need money. 
It’s the health versus wealth debate and I think it’s time to address the wealth side. 
And as the sun shines I really don’t think the public would accept anything less

[grendel]

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/how-do-vaccines-work

you have to catch the virus for it to work , basically it tries to kill it off inside you before you infect too many others, the quicker its killed off inside your body, the less chance it has to reproduce and get passed on.

a vaccine doesnt stop you catching the virus, it does enable your body to have a pre-prepared response to the virus enabling the body to kill it off earlier, preventing you getting as sick., thus if you dont get the cough, there is less chance to pass the virus on.

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, grendel said:

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/how-do-vaccines-work

you have to catch the virus for it to work , basically it tries to kill it off inside you before you infect too many others, the quicker its killed off inside your body, the less chance it has to reproduce and get passed on.

a vaccine doesnt stop you catching the virus, it does enable your body to have a pre-prepared response to the virus enabling the body to kill it off earlier, preventing you getting as sick., thus if you dont get the cough, there is less chance to pass the virus on.

Thus Matt Hancock was probably correct when he said,

He added: "It looks like the first jab reduces your impact of transmitting the disease by about two-thirds, but we need more evidence on that as well. "

[Mouldy]

41 minutes ago, Cheesey69 said:

Because what figure is acceptable? What price is life risky?

remember the slogans. Protect the NHS. 
once the pressure is off the nhs and infections get more manageable then that’s job done. It’s not to stop people dying. 
once the levels dip to around other seasonal illness job done. 
Because, and I know this first hand, the real race is to get our economic engine going fast. 
I suspect one of the bonuses of the injection is to enable the work force to work. 
A debt bigger than the world war 2’s, massive unemployment, uncertain world outlook, waiting nhs lists bigger and longer than ever and Uk infrastructure creaking all need money. 
It’s the health versus wealth debate and I think it’s time to address the wealth side. 
And as the sun shines I really don’t think the public would accept anything less

Again, I get that . . . . . . which is basically what I’m getting at too, but opening all of the schools at the same time is almost certainly going to push the infection rate back up.  By how much we don’t know, but if it is too great and puts back our return to ‘normality’ by a few weeks, would a more cautious approach to the schools situation not have been more appropriate? To me, at least, opening all of the schools at the same time is throwing caution to the wind, especially as we still have to wait before being allowed to meet other members of our families outside.  Unfortunately, I don’t think that children fully understand the potential impact of their actions and the consequences that may follow.  Any form of distancing will be forgotten when they are able to see friends with whom they have been denied the opportunity to play with for several weeks, yet they may still carry the virus.

My opinion, but valid I feel.

 

[Cheesey69]

True and well said

[Victoryv]

We have to return to something like normal sometime, it seems better thought out this time, and we have to trust the people with the science and the stats to back up their opinions and decisions, a lot of my friends, usually nearer retirement age, seem to have settled into their new life styles with complete ease and apathy, I still work by choice, hate seeing my long fought after business suffer, even though it will survive thanks to government help. As a society we are very squeamish about acceptable deaths, we have always lived with them but rarely had the spotlight shone on them.

I for one would rather take my chances out in the real, exciting, interesting and joyous world.

[marshman]

Interestingly this very question has been aired on Look East tonight - the view of both the "experts "  on the programme have said that if you live local, and as before, local is not defined, but they see no reason why in those circumstances you should be able to use your boat as from the 29th March.

But I bet the BA were not watching and will disagree and leave it until the 16th April!!!

 

[Ray]

The very phrase "acceptable deaths" somehow immediately diminishes it's exact real world meaning, much the same as the descriptor "collateral damage"

Yes, these things exist and always have and of course there are times the calculations have to be made and acted upon, we must all accept that.

I do think though that any such calculation must have the fullest scrutiny before we can say with confidence that most people will accept it in any given scenario.

In much the same way as infrastructure, welfare, military plans etc must be properly costed I do think the scientists should tell us (and the government, who have the unenviable task of taking decisions) honestly what level of deaths can be reasonably projected from any given course.

[marshman]

Well one thing I can tell you is that there have been no flu deaths this year!! They have all been lumped into the Covid number I am afraid.

 

[Mouldy]

13 minutes ago, Ray said:

The very phrase "acceptable deaths" somehow immediately diminishes it's exact real world meaning, much the same as the descriptor "collateral damage" . . . . . . . . .

But do we care that circa 15000 people die each year of ‘flu?  We have come to accept that they will happen.  They don’t  make the headlines in the papers and they’re barely newsworthy.

If we are to avoid annual lockdowns, deaths from Covid 19 will happen and until we know how effective any vaccines or annual boosters are, who can quantify how many to expect. 
It’s sad and no one probably wants to contemplate it, but that life.

[Ray]

13 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

But do we care that circa 15000 people die each year of ‘flu?  We have come to accept that they will happen.  They don’t  make the headlines in the papers and they’re barely newsworthy.

If we are to avoid annual lockdowns, deaths from Covid 19 will happen and until we know how effective any vaccines or annual boosters are, who can quantify how many to expect. 
It’s sad and no one probably wants to contemplate it, but that life.

You are right of course, I think maybe it is slightly less black and white than that but in essence it must be accepted, sadly.

I believe we do care very much about flu deaths annually and always have, it's why there is a vaccination policy and most years pre Covid I'm usually aware through the news media that the NHS suffers through Flu Season.

But your point is well made, my instinct is perhaps part of the very squeamishness mentioned and is causing me to try too hard to separate "not caring" & "accepting"

Maybe there is my answer.. to do both, care but accept nonetheless.

[socrates]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

Well one thing I can tell you is that there have been no flu deaths this year!! They have all been lumped into the Covid number I am afraid.

 

Flu has been largely prevented due to the current restrictions, increased hygiene and more people getting the flu vaccine. From what I can see on death certificates, no one has lumped COVID and Flu together Death certificates are legal documents and it is not a good idea to falsify the cause of death. As a point of interest, there is  still a three week waiting time for funeral slots at the crematorium. 

[socrates]

As for the term "acceptable death", all well and good until the "acceptable death" is your loved one or yourself. 

[JennyMorgan]

And on a brighter note!

[floydraser]

50 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

And on a brighter note!

I could just about manage the wine.....

[BroadAmbition]

But I bet the BA were not watching and will disagree and leave it until the 16th April!!!

Well if they do, I'll be giving them a damned ignoring too and following government guidelines

Griff

[PaulN]

I'm  very confused about the death figures that are published each day.

In the first wave, the deaths published for Covid, were those that occurred in hospitals, this was obviously wrong initially, as it didn't include care homes or people who died at home.

Now the figures we are told each day, are for people who died withing 28 days of testing positive for covid. Does this mean that if someone with no symptoms tests positive and within 28 days they die of say a heart attack or car crash, they are calculated into the covid statistics when their death certificate goes to the central registry?

[TheQ]

6 minutes ago, PaulN said:

I'm  very confused about the death figures that are published each day.

In the first wave, the deaths published for Covid, were those that occurred in hospitals, this was obviously wrong initially, as it didn't include care homes or people who died at home.

Now the figures we are told each day, are for people who died withing 28 days of testing positive for covid. Does this mean that if someone with no symptoms tests positive and within 28 days they die of say a heart attack or car crash, they are calculated into the covid statistics when their death certificate goes to the central registry?

yep

No one will know the real figures till a couple of years after everyone ish has been vaccinated . then they can look at the full totals of excess deaths over average number of deaths.

[Mouldy]

2 minutes ago, PaulN said:

I'm  very confused about the death figures that are published each day.

In the first wave, the deaths published for Covid, were those that occurred in hospitals, this was obviously wrong initially, as it didn't include care homes or people who died at home.

Now the figures we are told each day, are for people who died withing 28 days of testing positive for covid. Does this mean that if someone with no symptoms tests positive and within 28 days they die of say a heart attack or car crash, they are calculated into the covid statistics when their death certificate goes to the central registry?

That’s pretty much correct, I believe.  One of my neighbours works at the local hospital and she said that deaths attributable to Covid do not need post-mortems to be carried out.  Whilst the number of deaths is as high as it is, it obviously saves a lot of work.  I’m afraid I do have a slightly cynical view of the numbers, especially when 6000 Covid related deaths were conveniently trimmed off the numbers last year.  Not sure how that number was arrived at, either.