So, coronavirus...

[ASMO]

Don’t be shy, best point out that cases have dropped 11% in the week and nothing at all to do with the lock down.

Cases only dropped 2.5%, testing dropped 9.1%
Deaths went up 27.8%

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Cases on the “from last week” fell more than 11%. Testing dropped eh ? I didn’t see you parroting the massive rise in testing when numbers were creeping up.

It’s almost like you’re picking and choosing stuff rather than honest reporting,

Cases falling. Deaths will follow.

None of it to do with the lockdown.

Is that your belief? or do you have empirical evidence to support that statement?

[Rinkals]

Cases only dropped 2.5%, testing dropped 9.1%
Deaths went up 27.8%

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Cases on the “from last week” fell more than 11%. Testing dropped eh ? I didn’t see you parroting the massive rise in testing when numbers were creeping up.

It’s almost like you’re picking and choosing stuff rather than honest reporting,

Cases falling. Deaths will follow.

None of it to do with the lockdown.

Is that your belief? or do you have empirical evidence to support that statement?

I think this is where Bimbo says: "the evidence is out there, why don't you google".

[dpedin]

What bullshit.

The argument is there’s too many of them not how they’re paid.

I rest my case!

I would, looks like you’re an insider you’ll never critique it with any sense. At least now we know some salesmen earn more than a regional health CEO.

Almost Trumpain in the amount of nonsense in those two sentences. Presented with facts and figures that don't fit the narrative? Try some whataboutary, play the man and ignore the data. Arse!

'Insider' - As I said above all the data I used is publicly available
'Critique with any sense' - no just presenting hard data that is publicly available, if you disagree show me your analysis
'regional health CEO' - no such thing in Scotland only Health Board CEOs
'now we know some salesmen earn more than ...' - context my dear boy!

My work here is done!

[Bimbowomxn]

Cases only dropped 2.5%, testing dropped 9.1%
Deaths went up 27.8%

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Cases on the “from last week” fell more than 11%. Testing dropped eh ? I didn’t see you parroting the massive rise in testing when numbers were creeping up.

It’s almost like you’re picking and choosing stuff rather than honest reporting,

Cases falling. Deaths will follow.

None of it to do with the lockdown.

Is that your belief? or do you have empirical evidence to support that statement?

Every statement regarding the timings of restrictions are well known and nothing literally nothing has said that lockdowns work in a day. Saturday count would have been tests taken within 24 hours of the lockdown (and I’m being immensely generous as most would have been tests taken before last Thursday).

[Bimbowomxn]

I rest my case!

I would, looks like you’re an insider you’ll never critique it with any sense. At least now we know some salesmen earn more than a regional health CEO.

Almost Trumpain in the amount of nonsense in those two sentences. Presented with facts and figures that don't fit the narrative? Try some whataboutary, play the man and ignore the data. Arse!

'Insider' - As I said above all the data I used is publicly available
'Critique with any sense' - no just presenting hard data that is publicly available, if you disagree show me your analysis
'regional health CEO' - no such thing in Scotland only Health Board CEOs
'now we know some salesmen earn more than ...' - context my dear boy!

My work here is done!

You presented facts and figures for a completely different narrative the narrative was one of “how many” not “how much” , I’m not “playing” anything just ignoring irrelevant information.

And yes context would be we only employ high paid sales staff who actually sell things. They’re remuneration is based on that it’s quite unlikely there’s going to be too many of them.

Have a good day dear boy.

[ASMO]

Cases on the “from last week” fell more than 11%. Testing dropped eh ? I didn’t see you parroting the massive rise in testing when numbers were creeping up.

It’s almost like you’re picking and choosing stuff rather than honest reporting,

Cases falling. Deaths will follow.

None of it to do with the lockdown.

Is that your belief? or do you have empirical evidence to support that statement?

Every statement regarding the timings of restrictions are well known and nothing literally nothing has said that lockdowns work in a day. Saturday count would have been tests taken within 24 hours of the lockdown (and I’m being immensely generous as most would have been tests taken before last Thursday).

So to summrise, you are saying the lockdown will have absolutely no impact on the number of cases dropping, deaths dropping etc etc, nothing at all? Or are you saying that it will have a positive impact but that it will take time for those stats to filter through?

[Tichtheid]

I would, looks like you’re an insider you’ll never critique it with any sense. At least now we know some salesmen earn more than a regional health CEO.

Almost Trumpain in the amount of nonsense in those two sentences. Presented with facts and figures that don't fit the narrative? Try some whataboutary, play the man and ignore the data. Arse!

'Insider' - As I said above all the data I used is publicly available
'Critique with any sense' - no just presenting hard data that is publicly available, if you disagree show me your analysis
'regional health CEO' - no such thing in Scotland only Health Board CEOs
'now we know some salesmen earn more than ...' - context my dear boy!

My work here is done!

You presented facts and figures for a completely different narrative the narrative was one of “how many” not “how much” ,

Ahem

That all sounds as expected really. I’d thought the criticism was aimed at the sheer volume of staff in business administration roles, rather than their individual salary. Ie the total cost.

Again that can be looked at - the data is published by the NHS Scotland for example. It is however difficult to split it down into what are purely back office staff and which are involved in direct clinical care. At a high level over 83% of staff are direct clinical care - doctors, nurses, physios, care assistants, labs, etc. However when you drill down into the remaining 17% many of these are admin or other staff involved in delivering direct clinical care i.e. receptionists, medical secretaries, patient records staff, etc.

What % of this 17% are in managerial grades - in NHS terms who earn over £45k? About 7.5%, c2000 staff. The rest are non-managerial. NHS Scotland employs over 145,00 staff so this is about 0.7%. You can of course extend your definition of a manager to include those earning below £45k say to £39k by looking at lower banding and this possibly extends this to c1.5%. However many of these folk don't fit into a manager role definition but will have technical expertise in a specific area and are paid those salaries because of market salary levels i.e. IT, finance, HR, etc. I don't know what folk think - is c1% too high? Finally remember many in these managerial grades will be clinical staff who are now undertaking a managerial role, including up to CEO levels.

PS These figures are very rough so apologies for any mistakes - trying to eat my lunch at same time!

[Insane_Homer]

Cases on the “from last week” fell more than 11%. Testing dropped eh ? I didn’t see you parroting the massive rise in testing when numbers were creeping up.

I've linked the source for the data, government released figures.

Where you sucking 11% from?

and once again, for the umpteenth time, presupposing what I should be posting and when

[Insane_Homer]

Promising

[Saint]

Promising

That's beyond wildest dreams stuff. They need yo get the safety data collated now

[Longshanks]

Promising

Wow

[Slick]

Any coincidence this is announced after the election...

[Margin__Walker]

Superb news

The markets definitely liked it too.

[Longshanks]

Any coincidence this is announced after the election...

I hope so.

[Sandstorm]

Any coincidence this is announced after the election...

There was an election?

[Saint]

Lots of challenges here.

1 - Phase 3 is not complete. This is early data being released to request emergency approval. Regulators will want to see a lot of data as this one uses a completely new approach to vaccine development

2 - Distribution of this is going to be challenging. It needs 2 doses, 3 weeks apart, and storage at -80 degrees.

However 90% effectiveness is very high

[Biffer]

Lots of challenges here.

1 - Phase 3 is not complete. This is early data being released to request emergency approval. Regulators will want to see a lot of data as this one uses a completely new approach to vaccine development

2 - Distribution of this is going to be challenging. It needs 2 doses, 3 weeks apart, and storage at -80 degrees.

However 90% effectiveness is very high

Yeah, challenges but it's very promising. If other vaccines have similar results it would suggest the further work might get it up into the high nineties for efficacy. Duration of immunity still an unknown but this is still very good news.

Pfizer say they'll have enough safety data to take to regulators in a couple of weeks.

[Longshanks]

Lots of challenges here.

1 - Phase 3 is not complete. This is early data being released to request emergency approval. Regulators will want to see a lot of data as this one uses a completely new approach to vaccine development

2 - Distribution of this is going to be challenging. It needs 2 doses, 3 weeks apart, and storage at -80 degrees.

However 90% effectiveness is very high

Despite the major concerns, 90% would effectively mean eradication, yes?
Might take a few years though

[Biffer]

Lots of challenges here.

1 - Phase 3 is not complete. This is early data being released to request emergency approval. Regulators will want to see a lot of data as this one uses a completely new approach to vaccine development

2 - Distribution of this is going to be challenging. It needs 2 doses, 3 weeks apart, and storage at -80 degrees.

However 90% effectiveness is very high

Despite the major concerns, 90% would effectively mean eradication, yes?
Might take a few years though

In theory it might but considering we have 100% effective vaccines for other diseases that have not been eradicated it's unlikely. We've had vaccine for polio since the fifties and it's still out there.

[Sandstorm]

Lots of challenges here.

1 - Phase 3 is not complete. This is early data being released to request emergency approval. Regulators will want to see a lot of data as this one uses a completely new approach to vaccine development

2 - Distribution of this is going to be challenging. It needs 2 doses, 3 weeks apart, and storage at -80 degrees.

However 90% effectiveness is very high

Despite the major concerns, 90% would effectively mean eradication, yes?
Might take a few years though

90% is good, but is it lockdown good?

[C69]

Mid November before finalised safety data.
Uk has bought 30m could be up and running by the end of the month with 1.3bn possibly produced by the end of next year.

[Tichtheid]

This is very promising news.

Saint, just supposing this works and we can contain the virus, would this vaccine inform other vaccines for new corona viruses? The next Sars or Mers or whatever?

[dpedin]

It is great news and I believe more good news on the vaccine front is coming soon! However the logistics for mass vaccination is a major problem especially in the midst of winter and the vast majority of NHS staff working hard to deal with patients. The workforce associated with this will be a major problem unless we enlarge the number and types of professionals who can give a vaccine. Even then it is going to be a major hurdle. Makes a good argument for maintaining a very strict lock down in run up to Christmas so we have some headroom to work within and get the vaccine programme up and running. Trying to vaccinate folk in middle of a major outbreak will be difficult. Hopefully other vaccines coming on stream will have easier logistics re storage etc.

[Saint]

Mid November before finalised safety data.
Uk has bought 30m could be up and running by the end of the month with 1.3bn possibly produced by the end of next year.

If I read it right, we have 30m ordered, which would be 15m people. Realistically if we see 20,000 doses in the UK this side of Christmas I'd be surprised

[Longshanks]

I think originally the UK governed ordered 90 million doses. I think it is now 60 million (30 million people)
But I could be wrong....

[dpedin]

Almost Trumpain in the amount of nonsense in those two sentences. Presented with facts and figures that don't fit the narrative? Try some whataboutary, play the man and ignore the data. Arse!

'Insider' - As I said above all the data I used is publicly available
'Critique with any sense' - no just presenting hard data that is publicly available, if you disagree show me your analysis
'regional health CEO' - no such thing in Scotland only Health Board CEOs
'now we know some salesmen earn more than ...' - context my dear boy!

My work here is done!

You presented facts and figures for a completely different narrative the narrative was one of “how many” not “how much” ,

Ahem

That all sounds as expected really. I’d thought the criticism was aimed at the sheer volume of staff in business administration roles, rather than their individual salary. Ie the total cost.

Again that can be looked at - the data is published by the NHS Scotland for example. It is however difficult to split it down into what are purely back office staff and which are involved in direct clinical care. At a high level over 83% of staff are direct clinical care - doctors, nurses, physios, care assistants, labs, etc. However when you drill down into the remaining 17% many of these are admin or other staff involved in delivering direct clinical care i.e. receptionists, medical secretaries, patient records staff, etc.

What % of this 17% are in managerial grades - in NHS terms who earn over £45k? About 7.5%, c2000 staff. The rest are non-managerial. NHS Scotland employs over 145,00 staff so this is about 0.7%. You can of course extend your definition of a manager to include those earning below £45k say to £39k by looking at lower banding and this possibly extends this to c1.5%. However many of these folk don't fit into a manager role definition but will have technical expertise in a specific area and are paid those salaries because of market salary levels i.e. IT, finance, HR, etc. I don't know what folk think - is c1% too high? Finally remember many in these managerial grades will be clinical staff who are now undertaking a managerial role, including up to CEO levels.

PS These figures are very rough so apologies for any mistakes - trying to eat my lunch at same time!

Tichtheid - thanks. I keep making the mistake that, like most on here, Bimbo is a reasonable individual and its worth trying to have a sensible debate with him. I keep forgetting that he is just a sad lonely twat.

[Saint]

This is very promising news.

Saint, just supposing this works and we can contain the virus, would this vaccine inform other vaccines for new corona viruses? The next Sars or Mers or whatever?

This is a mRNA vaccine, which is very different to how we've thought of vaccine development in the past. In theory it can lead to much faster and much lower cost development of vaccines - but this approach is very new still

[Saint]

I think originally the UK governed ordered 90 million doses. I think it is now 60 million (30 million people)
But I could be wrong....

Everything i read says 30m doses
Edit - and now the BBC science guy so 40m doses ordered

[Bimbowomxn]

Cases on the “from last week” fell more than 11%. Testing dropped eh ? I didn’t see you parroting the massive rise in testing when numbers were creeping up.

I've linked the source for the data, government released figures.

Where you sucking 11% from?

and once again, for the umpteenth time, presupposing what I should be posting and when

I’m taking 11% from the metric you’ve applied to reporting deaths.

And once again, I’ll point out you have an agenda ....

[Longshanks]

I think originally the UK governed ordered 90 million doses. I think it is now 60 million (30 million people)
But I could be wrong....

Everything i read says 30m doses
Edit - and now the BBC science guy so 40m doses ordered

This said 90 million
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... er-valneva

[dpedin]

Cases on the “from last week” fell more than 11%. Testing dropped eh ? I didn’t see you parroting the massive rise in testing when numbers were creeping up.

I've linked the source for the data, government released figures.

Where you sucking 11% from?

and once again, for the umpteenth time, presupposing what I should be posting and when

I’m taking 11% from the metric you’ve applied to reporting deaths.

And once again, I’ll point out you have an agenda ....

Insane Homer ... how dare you have an agenda!!!! Remember only Bimbo is allowed one of those on this bored! Hang your head in shame man.

[Bimbowomxn]

Is that your belief? or do you have empirical evidence to support that statement?

Every statement regarding the timings of restrictions are well known and nothing literally nothing has said that lockdowns work in a day. Saturday count would have been tests taken within 24 hours of the lockdown (and I’m being immensely generous as most would have been tests taken before last Thursday).

So to summrise, you are saying the lockdown will have absolutely no impact on the number of cases dropping, deaths dropping etc etc, nothing at all? Or are you saying that it will have a positive impact but that it will take time for those stats to filter through?

So to summarise, I made an immensely clear point regarding the lockdown dates and therefore the relationship with current falling case numbers.

I think it’s fairly obvious if everyone stays home the spread of the virus is slowed and of course have posted nothing that says otherwise.

[Bimbowomxn]

I've linked the source for the data, government released figures.

Where you sucking 11% from?

and once again, for the umpteenth time, presupposing what I should be posting and when

I’m taking 11% from the metric you’ve applied to reporting deaths.

And once again, I’ll point out you have an agenda ....

Insane Homer ... how dare you have an agenda!!!! Remember only Bimbo is allowed one of those on this bored! Hang your head in shame man.

Pointing something out doesn’t say anything about “allowing” .... long covid seems terrible.

[Tichtheid]

This is very promising news.

Saint, just supposing this works and we can contain the virus, would this vaccine inform other vaccines for new corona viruses? The next Sars or Mers or whatever?

This is a mRNA vaccine, which is very different to how we've thought of vaccine development in the past. In theory it can lead to much faster and much lower cost development of vaccines - but this approach is very new still

Thanks.

[Biffer]

I think originally the UK governed ordered 90 million doses. I think it is now 60 million (30 million people)
But I could be wrong....

Everything i read says 30m doses
Edit - and now the BBC science guy so 40m doses ordered

This said 90 million
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... er-valneva

If I'm reading that right, it says 30m doses of the Pfizer vaccine, 60m of the Valneva one.

[Saint]

I think originally the UK governed ordered 90 million doses. I think it is now 60 million (30 million people)
But I could be wrong....

Everything i read says 30m doses
Edit - and now the BBC science guy so 40m doses ordered

This said 90 million
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... er-valneva

That says 30m of the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine. 60m doses of the Valneva vaccine - which is a completely "traditional" vaccine

[Longshanks]

Everything i read says 30m doses
Edit - and now the BBC science guy so 40m doses ordered

This said 90 million
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... er-valneva

That says 30m of the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine. 60m doses of the Valneva vaccine - which is a completely "traditional" vaccine

My fault for not reading it all.
Ta

[JM2K6]

On vaccines, I found this a really interesting thread:

[Insane_Homer]

Cases on the “from last week” fell more than 11%. Testing dropped eh ? I didn’t see you parroting the massive rise in testing when numbers were creeping up.

I've linked the source for the data, government released figures.

Where you sucking 11% from?

and once again, for the umpteenth time, presupposing what I should be posting and when

I’m taking 11% from the metric you’ve applied to reporting deaths.

And once again, I’ll point out you have an agenda ....

Deaths? I thought it was cases

Week to week comparison -2.5%, couldn't be clearer.

weekly.JPG (21.64 KiB) Viewed 736 times

[Raggs]

15 million is still a good number. Who you give it to could be key though.

For me, anyone capable of working from home is bottom of the list. Teachers, public transport staff, NHS etc, and the vulnerable top of the list. Help those who are at risk, and stop those who would be most likely to spread it.