So, coronavirus...

Where goats go to escape
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

Raggs wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:11 am
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:01 am
Raggs wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:16 pm Yeah, but it's not that the government said it was going to just give 1 dose and never give a second. Just that instead of 3 weeks, it would be 12 weeks space. The likelyhood of the effectiveness dropping off within just 12 weeks is really not likely. This was recommended by the scientific advisors, not just decided by the government.
And all I'm saying is that they didn't have the data to say with confidence that this would work. They pushed ahead. They've been proven right, which is great, but they still took a risk.
There's still not technically data to show that we don't need boosters every six months either but educated guesses can be made. You said they were reckless, they weren't. It was a risk, not a great one and it was far from reckless.
It doesn't matter that there's no data to show that. There's no downside to going with what we have right now, because it's better than literally every alternative. And that's completely different to going away from what we know in favour of something we hope - a risk that could've backfired and impacted millions of people and invalidated the entire strategy, leaving us back at square one having wasted time, money, and material.

To me, that's reckless. But it worked out. So there's that.

'Night!
Ovals
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:52 pm

Openside wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:14 am
Raggs wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:16 am Id say we handled it badly. The tier systems just meant lower tiers were free to get to higher. The lack of enforcement on movement between tiers meant tier 1 areas had a load of incoming traffic.

Christmas was a disaster, 1 day back at school the same.
Do you think the one day back at school thing rather than the total clusterfuck it appeared to be, was them delineating the end of the holidays, so kids felt they were 'back at school' and the 'on holiday' mentality was behind them. Just a thought.
:lolno: :lolno: :lolno:
Ovals
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:52 pm

It's pleasing that we had a very good week in the run up to schools re-opening - lessens the chance of it going belly up and gives a bit more breathing space for the vaccination programme to take effect. With 40% of all adults now vaccinated, even though some will have a few weeks before immunity kick in, we should soon be in pretty good shape - variants permitting.

What we need now is a nice warm Spring - a) to help suppress the virus b) to make better use of the relaxation of outdoor mixing.
shaggy
Posts: 416
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:11 am

JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:17 am
Raggs wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:11 am
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:01 am

And all I'm saying is that they didn't have the data to say with confidence that this would work. They pushed ahead. They've been proven right, which is great, but they still took a risk.

There's still not technically data to show that we don't need boosters every six months either but educated guesses can be made. You said they were reckless, they weren't. It was a risk, not a great one and it was far from reckless.
It doesn't matter that there's no data to show that. There's no downside to going with what we have right now, because it's better than literally every alternative. And that's completely different to going away from what we know in favour of something we hope - a risk that could've backfired and impacted millions of people and invalidated the entire strategy, leaving us back at square one having wasted time, money, and material.

To me, that's reckless. But it worked out. So there's that.

'Night!
There is a legal definition for reckless. It does not align with your argument.
tc27
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:18 pm

Agree reckless is not the term I would use. JCVIs reasoning on delaying the second dose was rational and could be called a 'calculated risk' at worst.
User avatar
Margin__Walker
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:47 am

Ovals wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:39 am
Openside wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:14 am
Raggs wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:16 am Id say we handled it badly. The tier systems just meant lower tiers were free to get to higher. The lack of enforcement on movement between tiers meant tier 1 areas had a load of incoming traffic.

Christmas was a disaster, 1 day back at school the same.
Do you think the one day back at school thing rather than the total clusterfuck it appeared to be, was them delineating the end of the holidays, so kids felt they were 'back at school' and the 'on holiday' mentality was behind them. Just a thought.
:lolno: :lolno: :lolno:
Good lord. Yes that was clearly the plan OS
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:51 pm

Openside wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:14 am
Raggs wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:16 am Id say we handled it badly. The tier systems just meant lower tiers were free to get to higher. The lack of enforcement on movement between tiers meant tier 1 areas had a load of incoming traffic.

Christmas was a disaster, 1 day back at school the same.
Do you think the one day back at school thing rather than the total clusterfuck it appeared to be, was them delineating the end of the holidays, so kids felt they were 'back at school' and the 'on holiday' mentality was behind them. Just a thought.
No. Not even close. Not even in the realms of possibility.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6474
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Received my vaccination entitlement letter today! Going to check for available slots...
Ovals
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:52 pm

tabascoboy wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:05 pm Received my vaccination entitlement letter today! Going to check for available slots...
:thumbup:

I had mine 25 days ago - so should be approaching maximum effectiveness now.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6474
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

First one booked for 19th March, first Friday that it's available so I have the weekend to recover if it makes me feel grim! 2nd on 4th June.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

shaggy wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:42 am
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:17 am
Raggs wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:11 am


There's still not technically data to show that we don't need boosters every six months either but educated guesses can be made. You said they were reckless, they weren't. It was a risk, not a great one and it was far from reckless.
It doesn't matter that there's no data to show that. There's no downside to going with what we have right now, because it's better than literally every alternative. And that's completely different to going away from what we know in favour of something we hope - a risk that could've backfired and impacted millions of people and invalidated the entire strategy, leaving us back at square one having wasted time, money, and material.

To me, that's reckless. But it worked out. So there's that.

'Night!
There is a legal definition for reckless. It does not align with your argument.
Sure, okay. I definitely wasn't using the legal definition. Just the colloquial one.
Biffer
Posts: 9141
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:33 pm
shaggy wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:42 am
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:17 am

It doesn't matter that there's no data to show that. There's no downside to going with what we have right now, because it's better than literally every alternative. And that's completely different to going away from what we know in favour of something we hope - a risk that could've backfired and impacted millions of people and invalidated the entire strategy, leaving us back at square one having wasted time, money, and material.

To me, that's reckless. But it worked out. So there's that.

'Night!
There is a legal definition for reckless. It does not align with your argument.
Sure, okay. I definitely wasn't using the legal definition. Just the colloquial one.
Your colloquial definition. As you can see, it doesn’t line up with other people’s definition.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
TheNatalShark
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:35 pm

More shocking statics about how the Europeans are shunning the AZ vaccine, and it's all going to waste.

User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... t-yet-used
“ Revealed: four in five Oxford Covid jabs delivered to EU not yet used”

According to the ECDC, Italy has had 499,200 AstraZeneca doses delivered and its health practitioners have given just 96,621 jabs (19%).

In contrast, four out of five of the Pfizer vaccine doses supplied to Belgium (81%), Italy (80%) and Germany (82%) have been administered, the ECDC data suggests.

Couldn’t believe when I read this. Checked the publication wasn’t the daily mail. But it was actually the EU extremist site, the Guardian.

For Italy is that number inclusive or exclusive of seized shipments?
Glaston
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:35 am

TheNatalShark wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:10 pm More shocking statics about how the Europeans are shunning the AZ vaccine, and it's all going to waste.

Both my sister and Bro in law have had the AZ one in France.

Neither had any side effects.
TheNatalShark
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:35 pm

Ymx wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:24 pm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... t-yet-used
“ Revealed: four in five Oxford Covid jabs delivered to EU not yet used”

According to the ECDC, Italy has had 499,200 AstraZeneca doses delivered and its health practitioners have given just 96,621 jabs (19%).

In contrast, four out of five of the Pfizer vaccine doses supplied to Belgium (81%), Italy (80%) and Germany (82%) have been administered, the ECDC data suggests.

Couldn’t believe when I read this. Checked the publication wasn’t the daily mail. But it was actually the EU extremist site, the Guardian.

For Italy is that number inclusive or exclusive of seized shipments?
The delay in Europe being highlighted at end of Feb was a combination of

a) the restrictions on use on 55/65+
b) the poor rollout planning so far in the larger countries, eg in graph further above you can see where for France for example decided to actually distribute to doctors in late Feb to administer, rather than just vaccine centre
c) because of the poor rollouts and age restrictions focus remained on delivering Pfizer to at risk groups
d) the skepticism of AZ
e) some administrators retaining a second dose of AZ out of concern of not getting the follow up within 4 weeks

I'd bet we'll see the glut worked through as the national governments come under pressure to administer and the "EU aren't delivering doses" excuse is no longer applicable, tapered by whatever level of AZ and total anti-vaxxer/pro-plaguer population actually exists.

It's simply not the demonstrable case that the vast majority of Europeans don't want AZ. The Guardian even ran a ticker stating that because France had only administered 1 in 5 jabs at end of Feb, that meant 80% of Europeans are outright refusing to have the vaccine. Further examples such as "Berlin clinic offering general vaccine admin for anyone has to close because no patients turned up for AZ" neglected to mention that the "anyone" had to have a government issued certificate to be vaccinated as part of at risk/priority groups... which they weren't issuing without an already booked appointment.

All round inept.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

Biffer wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:09 pm
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:33 pm
shaggy wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:42 am

There is a legal definition for reckless. It does not align with your argument.
Sure, okay. I definitely wasn't using the legal definition. Just the colloquial one.
Your colloquial definition. As you can see, it doesn’t line up with other people’s definition.
No, don't be a dick. When we call things reckless we're rarely using the legal definition. The disagreement isn't over the fucking definition of the word reckless. It's a difference of opinion.
shaggy
Posts: 416
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:11 am

JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:43 pm
Biffer wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:09 pm
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:33 pm

Sure, okay. I definitely wasn't using the legal definition. Just the colloquial one.
Your colloquial definition. As you can see, it doesn’t line up with other people’s definition.
No, don't be a dick. When we call things reckless we're rarely using the legal definition. The disagreement isn't over the fucking definition of the word reckless. It's a difference of opinion.
The fundamental premise of recklessness has not been met as it requires no consideration for the outcome on people, whereas the whole point of extending the time between doses is about that very potential.
Biffer
Posts: 9141
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:43 pm
Biffer wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:09 pm
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:33 pm

Sure, okay. I definitely wasn't using the legal definition. Just the colloquial one.
Your colloquial definition. As you can see, it doesn’t line up with other people’s definition.
No, don't be a dick. When we call things reckless we're rarely using the legal definition. The disagreement isn't over the fucking definition of the word reckless. It's a difference of opinion.
Being reckless is doing something without due consideration of the risk.

That’s not what happened here.

You might not agree with the evaluation of the risk, but that doesn’t mean it was reckless.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

It was just a bit of a reckless accusation. :think:
ohno
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2020 8:39 pm

Sandstorm wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:43 pm
SaintK wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:50 pm
tc27 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:33 pm Not understanding the hate for funding T&T - yes its galling to throw good money after bad but if we don't have it we are putting the whole farm on vaccines - and vaccines need to information from test results to detect and develop against new variants.
It's not the funding that's the issue. It's the fact that it is still not working efficiently, yet the main benificaries are making £M's of profit out of it with little or no apparent oversight or performance penalty clauses
Where is Harding hiding at the moment?
Exactly. They should spilt the Testing from the Track & Trace elements. Only the former is working, the latter is a joke.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... Week39.pdf

It looks to be working reasonably at the moment, I sometimes think that with the trace part that a lot of opinion on it based on past failures and Boris setting it up for a fail, rather than its current performance. Though how it copes with things opening up will be an interesting test.

It’s pinged me twice so I maybe a bit biased in my opinion
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

Biffer wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:58 pm
JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:43 pm
Biffer wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:09 pm

Your colloquial definition. As you can see, it doesn’t line up with other people’s definition.
No, don't be a dick. When we call things reckless we're rarely using the legal definition. The disagreement isn't over the fucking definition of the word reckless. It's a difference of opinion.
Being reckless is doing something without due consideration of the risk.

That’s not what happened here.

You might not agree with the evaluation of the risk, but that doesn’t mean it was reckless.
I was accusing them of being blasé about the potential downsides, so no, I don't think reckless is particularly wide of the mark.

Focusing on the definition of the word is definitely even more annoying than arguing the content though, so I'm happy to leave it there.
Biffer
Posts: 9141
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

The people who made the recommendation have spent their entire careers understanding how vaccines work and the epidemiological risks. So I'll take their opinion n of what a proper evaluation of the risk is. Happy to leave it there
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:51 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:17 pm I was accusing them of being blasé about the potential downsides, so no, I don't think reckless is particularly wide of the mark.

Focusing on the definition of the word is definitely even more annoying than arguing the content though, so I'm happy to leave it there.
What evidence do you have about the being blase about the potential downsides? What evidence do you have that there were downsides with a reasonable likelyhood of happening?

This wasn't the government, this was a scientific advisory group that suggested this.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
dpedin
Posts: 2975
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

Marylandolorian wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:20 pm
Ovals wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:31 pm
Marylandolorian wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:15 pm This article might square things up about why some nations have more death than others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... al-report/
It's behind a paywall - can you paste the key bits ?

Edit - no matter, the Guardian also have the story - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021 ... ays-report

TBH - that theory makes much more sense.
Was going to but yours is better . Also, the CDC confirmed that blood type A put people more at risk.
The World Obesity Federation is interesting. The correlation between obesity and deaths due to covid19 is not a surprise and is indeed built into the groups at risk for vaccination in the UK. It is clear that older, more obese and diabetic folk are at greater risk. It has a face value and no doubt folk will see that as a way of explaining higher death rates in England and the UK. However it doesn't quite explain the significant differences in death rates between comparable countries. Indeed they say in the report that 'We recognise that these figures are by necessity incomplete, and that a clearer picture may emerge as the pandemic develops further. The figures are affected by the ability of a country to control its borders and by the speed with which the virus and its variants spread through populations and into more remote areas.'

If we look at the data within the report in more detail it is interesting.

For example lets look at the Nordic countries - Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. They make a good case study, they all have broadly similar levels of obesity, defined as BMI over 30 - Denmark 19.7%, Finland 22.2%, Norway 23.1% and Sweden 20.6%. However the death rates per 100k vary significantly with Sweden the highest at 85.7 per 100k or pop compared with Denmark 22.39, Finland 10.17 and Norway 8.20. It is clear that there is something more than obesity levels that is driving death rates - might have been Sweden's policy of herd immunity?

Another example is Australia and NZ - both of whom have a higher obesity rate than the UK - Aussie is 29%, NZ is 30.8% and the UK is 27.8%. If obesity is the determining factor then we would all have the same death rates yet Aussie is 3.64 per 100k, NZ is 0.51 but the UK is 110.73. It is clear that there is something more than obesity levels that is driving death rates - might have been the Aussie and NZ pursuit of elimination of community transmission? The UK does however have a slightly older population - 18.8% over 65 compared with 16.4%.

Another example is comparing the UK and Germany - UK has an obesity level of 27.8% and Germany 22.3% so we might expect to see Germany deaths about 80% of the UKs? The UK has a death rate of 110.73 per 100k and Germany 40.75 per 100k - 37% of the UK rate. Again there must be something else driving the far higher level of deaths in the UK compared with a similar large european country - is it how Germany organised their covid19 response different to the UK? The UK however has a younger population than Germany - 18.8% over 65 compared with 21.7% in Germany.

Lastly all the four UK countries have broadly similar levels of obesity at c28% with perhaps Scotland being marginally higher than the rest? However the covid19 death rates vary considerably with NI sitting about 60% of the English death rate no matter which measure (deaths within 28 days, death cert or excess deaths) you use. Levels of obesity do not explain the difference in death rates despite having a similar high level UK wide policy approach - might it have been how the NI assembly and its local NHS/PH system delivered and communicated it's covid19 response differently?

It is clear from the World Obesity Report that if covid19 is spreading through a country then the old, the obese and those with diabetes will be far more at risk. However it may that those countries who have better success at stopping or controlling covid19 spreading through their countries will have lower death rates despite the levels of obesity they have. Conversely those who lose control of covid19 and have an older and more obese population will see higher death rates.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 10884
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

Something which I haven't seen analysed is exactly how each country is treating patients that arrive in their Covid19 wards.

Who sends their patients to hospital earliest? Denmark or Norway? Does the UK wait too long before admitting people for treatment?
Do they all get the same treatment when they arrive - Dex and high-flow oxygen? Do you wait longer for oxygen in NI vs Scotland?
What about care in the ward? Do patients in Australia get turned/proned more often than UK?

I think the above factors are just as important as obesity or co-morbidity factors when considering deaths.
dpedin
Posts: 2975
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:15 pm Something which I haven't seen analysed is exactly how each country is treating patients that arrive in their Covid19 wards.

Who sends their patients to hospital earliest? Denmark or Norway? Does the UK wait too long before admitting people for treatment?
Do they all get the same treatment when they arrive - Dex and high-flow oxygen? Do you wait longer for oxygen in NI vs Scotland?
What about care in the ward? Do patients in Australia get turned/proned more often than UK?

I think the above factors are just as important as obesity or co-morbidity factors when considering deaths.
Medical procedures, use of ventilation/CPAP and drugs they are using is evolving all the time and in the UK at least the college/professional networks etc are making sure best practice etc is communicated quickly. Four country CMOs are coordinating communications as well. Not sure about other countries, however in some of the states in the USA it depends if you have a valid credit card or health insurance.

However best way of minimising death is to not catch it!
dpedin
Posts: 2975
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

Fangle wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:23 pm Out of curiosity, who was dpedin on PR? These new names confuse me.
dpedin!
dkm57
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:08 pm

dpedin wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:32 pm
Fangle wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:23 pm Out of curiosity, who was dpedin on PR? These new names confuse me.
dpedin!
sneaky :???:
User avatar
Openside
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:27 pm

Raggs wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:02 am
Openside wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:14 am
Raggs wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:16 am Id say we handled it badly. The tier systems just meant lower tiers were free to get to higher. The lack of enforcement on movement between tiers meant tier 1 areas had a load of incoming traffic.

Christmas was a disaster, 1 day back at school the same.
Do you think the one day back at school thing rather than the total clusterfuck it appeared to be, was them delineating the end of the holidays, so kids felt they were 'back at school' and the 'on holiday' mentality was behind them. Just a thought.
No. Not even close. Not even in the realms of possibility.
Well it seems utterly bonkers then 🤪 I thought it sent the message to the pupils and teachers that school had started.
User avatar
Openside
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:27 pm

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:15 pm Something which I haven't seen analysed is exactly how each country is treating patients that arrive in their Covid19 wards.

Who sends their patients to hospital earliest? Denmark or Norway? Does the UK wait too long before admitting people for treatment?
Do they all get the same treatment when they arrive - Dex and high-flow oxygen? Do you wait longer for oxygen in NI vs Scotland?
What about care in the ward? Do patients in Australia get turned/proned more often than UK?

I think the above factors are just as important as obesity or co-morbidity factors when considering deaths.
I read an article that suggested that per capita the French Italians and Spanish had up to three times more people in hospital than the Brits, which I thought was interesting. Perhaps there is a bit of stiff upper lip about the Brits still 😂
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:51 pm

Openside wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:33 pmWell it seems utterly bonkers then 🤪 I thought it sent the message to the pupils and teachers that school had started.
It was literally a u-turn. They were adamant that schools would re-open. Scientists advising against it. I suspect that basically too many people refused to send their children, and it became obvious that it was a bad choice. I refused to send my son.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Marylandolorian
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:47 pm
Location: Amerikanuak

Openside wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:36 pm
I read an article that suggested that per capita the French Italians and Spanish had up to three times more people in hospital than the Brits, which I thought was interesting. Perhaps there is a bit of stiff upper lip about the Brits still 😂
🤥^

Maybe because in these countries people don’t pay $$$ for their hospital stay and also I read that France has 3 times more hospital beds per capital than the UK 😝
User avatar
Fangle
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:25 pm

Raggs wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:42 pm
Openside wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:33 pmWell it seems utterly bonkers then 🤪 I thought it sent the message to the pupils and teachers that school had started.
It was literally a u-turn. They were adamant that schools would re-open. Scientists advising against it. I suspect that basically too many people refused to send their children, and it became obvious that it was a bad choice. I refused to send my son.
How different from the USA, where the CDC is pushing for kids to go back to school. The catholic and other private schools have been open for some time with no disastrous results.
Ovals
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:52 pm

Fangle wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:06 pm
Raggs wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:42 pm
Openside wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:33 pmWell it seems utterly bonkers then 🤪 I thought it sent the message to the pupils and teachers that school had started.
It was literally a u-turn. They were adamant that schools would re-open. Scientists advising against it. I suspect that basically too many people refused to send their children, and it became obvious that it was a bad choice. I refused to send my son.
How different from the USA, where the CDC is pushing for kids to go back to school. The catholic and other private schools have been open for some time with no disastrous results.
Not sure that the USA is a great advert for how to handle Covid. Some might even claim it's been a disaster there.
User avatar
Fangle
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:25 pm

Ovals,

In no way am I defending the States handling of the virus. All I am doing is saying that many of the private schools, not the government controlled schools, have been back in class for months without disaster.
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8223
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

Fangle wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:04 pm Ovals,

In no way am I defending the States handling of the virus. All I am doing is saying that many of the private schools, not the government controlled schools, have been back in class for months without disaster.
There are those who would say that 500,000 official deaths; & deity only knows how man, "extra" deaths; as well as the fact that the US death rate, & case rate still hasn't plateaued; as somewhat of a disaster.

It's very difficult to pick out the wood from the trees in the where the US deaths & cases are coming from.
User avatar
Fangle
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:25 pm

fishfoodie wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:25 pm
Fangle wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:04 pm Ovals,

In no way am I defending the States handling of the virus. All I am doing is saying that many of the private schools, not the government controlled schools, have been back in class for months without disaster.
There are those who would say that 500,000 official deaths; & deity only knows how man, "extra" deaths; as well as the fact that the US death rate, & case rate still hasn't plateaued; as somewhat of a disaster.

It's very difficult to pick out the wood from the trees in the where the US deaths & cases are coming from.
I see that the worldometer site has the UK death rate at even worse than USA (if you can believe their figures) but I’m not trying to make points. All I’m saying is that going back to school looks to be ok. Make of that what you will.
tc27
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:18 pm

The US has generally had less deaths per head than most European countries, many states have had far less stringent lock-downs and their economy has suffered far less and is now bouncing back strongly (plus they are all getting a cash boost from the US government). Ohh and they are vaccinating quicker than anyone except for the UK.

At some point we are going to have to ask why Europe suffered the worst out of all the all the worlds developed areas despite the far greater social welfare systems and socialized health care than most. It may not be comfortable for us.
Post Reply