NPR

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:46 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:01 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:29 pm
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.

ASMO wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:53 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:46 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:01 am

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?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:27 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:18 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:04 pm



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.

ASMO wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:53 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:46 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:01 am

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?

dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:02 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:27 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:18 pm

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 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:32 am

ASMO wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:53 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:46 am



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 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:41 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:02 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:27 pm


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” ,

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:25 am

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!

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:46 am 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.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:59 am

Promising

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:59 am

Promising

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:06 pm Any coincidence this is announced after the election...

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:06 pm Any coincidence this is announced after the election...

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:19 pm 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

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:19 pm 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

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:41 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:19 pm 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

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:41 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:19 pm 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

C69 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:46 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:18 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:41 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:02 am

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

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:25 am

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 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:49 pm 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?

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:03 pm 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....

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:39 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:46 am 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

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:06 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:03 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:39 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:46 am 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 ....

ASMO wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:52 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:32 am

ASMO wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:53 am

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?

dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:13 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:39 am
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.

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:05 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:49 pm 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

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:06 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:03 pm 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

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:06 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:03 pm 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

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:24 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:06 pm

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

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:39 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:46 am 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 ....