NPR

Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

has he been binned again?

FWIW, I've had him on ignore for 3 weeks or so now and it really does make a difference. No idea what he got banned for but he is rarely out of order apart from being an idiot, just couldn't be bothered any longer.

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

I'm all in favour of alternative views but the knee-jerk argumentation does get a bit tedious.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 10:27 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 9:20 am +3000 deaths for the 4th week in a row and now a steady rise in cases back to over 20k per day for the last week too.

Cases is a worry.

What’s the excess deaths ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55411323

Covid-19: UK sees over 80,000 excess deaths during pandemic

ONS data

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

Now now, let’s not get carried away.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:32 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

Now now, let’s not get carried away.

He may be an arse ... but he is our arse!

Openside wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:53 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:33 pm More positive news on the Pfizer vaccine - it turns out that on average each vial contains 7 doses rather than 6, so rather than 40 million doses we actually have 46.6 million doses on order.

I heard it was 6 rather than 5

Sorry, you;re right. Even better, we actually have 48 million doses, so an extra 4 million covered

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:44 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:53 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:33 pm More positive news on the Pfizer vaccine - it turns out that on average each vial contains 7 doses rather than 6, so rather than 40 million doses we actually have 46.6 million doses on order.

I heard it was 6 rather than 5

Sorry, you;re right. Even better, we actually have 48 million doses, so an extra 4 million covered

Because I'm feeling lazy, what was the effectiveness of a single dose? Just wondering what sort of protection there is from that, and if it's worth giving more people 1 dose, than half the number 2 doses, and basically hope to secure more of the vaccine to give them the 2nd dose later.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:57 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:44 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:53 pm

I heard it was 6 rather than 5

Sorry, you;re right. Even better, we actually have 48 million doses, so an extra 4 million covered

Because I'm feeling lazy, what was the effectiveness of a single dose? Just wondering what sort of protection there is from that, and if it's worth giving more people 1 dose, than half the number 2 doses, and basically hope to secure more of the vaccine to give them the 2nd dose later.

2nd dose has to be done in 3 to 4 weeks. I'd have to check but 1 of the vaccines was 70% effective after first dose I think.

In case anyone's up for some light reading over the Christmas period, here's the IfG report into how the government's been making use of (or not as seems to be the case) scientific advice during the pandemic.

The Eat Out to Help Out scheme being described as epidemiologically illiterate is a particular highlight.

Jock42 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:04 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:57 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:44 pm


Sorry, you;re right. Even better, we actually have 48 million doses, so an extra 4 million covered

Because I'm feeling lazy, what was the effectiveness of a single dose? Just wondering what sort of protection there is from that, and if it's worth giving more people 1 dose, than half the number 2 doses, and basically hope to secure more of the vaccine to give them the 2nd dose later.

2nd dose has to be done in 3 to 4 weeks. I'd have to check but 1 of the vaccines was 70% effective after first dose I think.

Interesting. I wonder how much thought was given to prioritising double doses for some, but only bothering with single doses for others.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:16 pm Interesting. I wonder how much thought was given to prioritising double doses for some, but only bothering with single doses for others.

I think you might have a lawsuit on your hands if a patient dies after being told they "don''t need to come in for the 2nd dose....."

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:13 pm In case anyone's up for some light reading over the Christmas period, here's the IfG report into how the government's been making use of (or not as seems to be the case) scientific advice during the pandemic.

The Eat Out to Help Out scheme being described as epidemiologically illiterate is a particular highlight.

Don't tell Bimbo about the Eat out Scheme, he will not be happy!

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:20 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:13 pm In case anyone's up for some light reading over the Christmas period, here's the IfG report into how the government's been making use of (or not as seems to be the case) scientific advice during the pandemic.

The Eat Out to Help Out scheme being described as epidemiologically illiterate is a particular highlight.

Don't tell Bimbo about the Eat out Scheme, he will not be happy!

Even worse the OP didn't enclose the link

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:28 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:16 pm Interesting. I wonder how much thought was given to prioritising double doses for some, but only bothering with single doses for others.

I think you might have a lawsuit on your hands if a patient dies after being told they "don''t need to come in for the 2nd dose....."

Surely you could equally argue that if you were next in line, and could have had a 70% effective dose?

Basically, I'm looking at the numbers. 0.7 x 24 million (assuming 6 doses not 5) = 16.8m, so that's roughly 25% of the population vaccinated effectively. Or we could push that upto 50%. 50% is going to have a serious effect on how fast the virus can spread. Especially when combined with a few other millions from the other vaccines.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:28 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:16 pm Interesting. I wonder how much thought was given to prioritising double doses for some, but only bothering with single doses for others.

I think you might have a lawsuit on your hands if a patient dies after being told they "don''t need to come in for the 2nd dose....."

Yeah - also we're not realistically going to complete all the high risk groups anyway, so single dosing isn't all that realistic.

If it were the difference between vaccinating all 18-50 year olds or just half, there might be a different decision though as you're moving out of individual protection territory and into herd immunity

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:23 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:28 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:16 pm Interesting. I wonder how much thought was given to prioritising double doses for some, but only bothering with single doses for others.

I think you might have a lawsuit on your hands if a patient dies after being told they "don''t need to come in for the 2nd dose....."

Surely you could equally argue that if you were next in line, and could have had a 70% effective dose?

Basically, I'm looking at the numbers. 0.7 x 24 million (assuming 6 doses not 5) = 16.8m, so that's roughly 25% of the population vaccinated effectively. Or we could push that upto 50%. 50% is going to have a serious effect on how fast the virus can spread. Especially when combined with a few other millions from the other vaccines.

Why would you do something that none of the vaccine trials modeled ?

You could end up wasting millions of doses, & not having anyone adequately protected.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:26 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:23 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:28 pm

I think you might have a lawsuit on your hands if a patient dies after being told they "don''t need to come in for the 2nd dose....."

Surely you could equally argue that if you were next in line, and could have had a 70% effective dose?

Basically, I'm looking at the numbers. 0.7 x 24 million (assuming 6 doses not 5) = 16.8m, so that's roughly 25% of the population vaccinated effectively. Or we could push that upto 50%. 50% is going to have a serious effect on how fast the virus can spread. Especially when combined with a few other millions from the other vaccines.

Why would you do something that none of the vaccine trials modeled ?

You could end up wasting millions of doses, & not having anyone adequately protected.

They would have measured the effectiveness of a single dose. Hence the 70% figure Jock gave. If it's much lower than 70% then obviously it doesn't work.

My maths was wrong anyway, it should have been 0.95 x 24m so closer to 34% vaccinated with double doses vs 50% with single doses.

So another one of Hancock's ideas turns to rat shit

The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
The development is a blow to the UK government’s £100bn “Operation Moonshot” mass-testing plan, which aims to increase the number of tests carried out each day from 430,000 to 10m by early next year.

Well that puts paid to testing all those truck drivers down in Kent as well
Over promise and don't deliver.

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:05 pm So another one of Hancock's ideas turns to rat shit

The government has shelved plans to open rapid-turnaround coronavirus test centres across England over Christmas amid concerns from public health experts about the accuracy of their results, the Guardian has learned.
Ministers had planned to convert a number of existing testing sites into centres for lateral flow tests, which provide results in 30 minutes, to help cope with an anticipated surge in demand.
The development is a blow to the UK government’s £100bn “Operation Moonshot” mass-testing plan, which aims to increase the number of tests carried out each day from 430,000 to 10m by early next year.

Well that puts paid to testing all those truck drivers down in Kent as well
Over promise and don't deliver.

Could you maybe close your eyes and pretend it's both happening and working? (this is the deal we've offered the French so it's only fair)

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:42 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:30 pm

Are you naughty French going to starve us?

One of Borris's "170 lorries": his Chancellor will need mathematical somersaults of that order to fix this economy.

But local council already at it by issuing parking tickets to some of the lorries

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:23 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:28 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:16 pm Interesting. I wonder how much thought was given to prioritising double doses for some, but only bothering with single doses for others.

I think you might have a lawsuit on your hands if a patient dies after being told they "don''t need to come in for the 2nd dose....."

Surely you could equally argue that if you were next in line, and could have had a 70% effective dose?

Basically, I'm looking at the numbers. 0.7 x 24 million (assuming 6 doses not 5) = 16.8m, so that's roughly 25% of the population vaccinated effectively. Or we could push that upto 50%. 50% is going to have a serious effect on how fast the virus can spread. Especially when combined with a few other millions from the other vaccines.

Firstly, are you really thinking you’ve come up with something nobody else has thought of? Do you really think that no one else is smart enough to have thought of this so it hasn’t been considered?

Secondly, it wouldn’t work. To prevent epidemics of a disease with R=3, you need 67% of the population to be immune. If you’re only providing 70% immunity, you’d need to get that into nearly 100% of the population to prevent epidemic spread. So the better public health response is to give the higher level of protection to the vulnerable. It’s not hard to figure it out if you think a little bit and don’t assume you’re some kind of secret fucking genius.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:09 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:23 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:28 pm

I think you might have a lawsuit on your hands if a patient dies after being told they "don''t need to come in for the 2nd dose....."

Surely you could equally argue that if you were next in line, and could have had a 70% effective dose?

Basically, I'm looking at the numbers. 0.7 x 24 million (assuming 6 doses not 5) = 16.8m, so that's roughly 25% of the population vaccinated effectively. Or we could push that upto 50%. 50% is going to have a serious effect on how fast the virus can spread. Especially when combined with a few other millions from the other vaccines.

Firstly, are you really thinking you’ve come up with something nobody else has thought of? Do you really think that no one else is smart enough to have thought of this so it hasn’t been considered?

Secondly, it wouldn’t work. To prevent epidemics of a disease with R=3, you need 67% of the population to be immune. If you’re only providing 70% immunity, you’d need to get that into nearly 100% of the population to prevent epidemic spread. So the better public health response is to give the higher level of protection to the vulnerable. It’s not hard to figure it out if you think a little bit and don’t assume you’re some kind of secret fucking genius.

Way to go with the aggressive tones

No, I don't think I'm the only one to think of it. Hence me wondering how much thought there was given to it, and the thinking behind it.

50% of the population vaccinated effectively is going to put a huge dent in the virus's ability to spread, which will help protect everyone regardless. No, it's not the 70% needed to stop the virus completely, but it's a lot closer than 33% or so. Vulnerable individuals may be at greater risk, however it's not only vulnerable individuals dying/suffering long term from this. My interest is whether protecting 70% of the vulnerable vs 95%, but also protecting a far greater proportion of the population (which in turn will slow the spread significantly) would be the better approach. And again, I wondered what methods were used to decide this. I don't believe I'm a secret genius, but it is an interesting topic for me, hence me fucking raising it.

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:22 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:20 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:13 pm In case anyone's up for some light reading over the Christmas period, here's the IfG report into how the government's been making use of (or not as seems to be the case) scientific advice during the pandemic.

The Eat Out to Help Out scheme being described as epidemiologically illiterate is a particular highlight.

Don't tell Bimbo about the Eat out Scheme, he will not be happy!

Even worse the OP didn't enclose the link

My bad, really thought I had.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... isis_0.pdf

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:20 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:13 pm In case anyone's up for some light reading over the Christmas period, here's the IfG report into how the government's been making use of (or not as seems to be the case) scientific advice during the pandemic.

The Eat Out to Help Out scheme being described as epidemiologically illiterate is a particular highlight.

Don't tell Bimbo about the Eat out Scheme, he will not be happy!

Yes a certain poster did cross my mind when reading that part...

In fairness the report does state that the impact of EOTHO is still debated while pointing to a study that indicates the impact was significant, their main point is that scientists would not have supported the scheme and that SAGE weren't consulted over it. A lack of consultation and collaboration with experts as well as government departments working independently of each other is a recurring theme in the parts I've looked over so far.

This Government hasn’t worked together since 2016. No chance they’ll change that to solve Covid. It’s up to the scientific community to get us out of this.

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 2:07 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

has he been binned again?

FWIW, I've had him on ignore for 3 weeks or so now and it really does make a difference. No idea what he got banned for but he is rarely out of order apart from being an idiot, just couldn't be bothered any longer.

That really doesn't work when half the page is "Click to show this post"

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:04 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:42 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:30 pm

Are you naughty French going to starve us?

One of Borris's "170 lorries": his Chancellor will need mathematical somersaults of that order to fix this economy.

But local council already at it by issuing parking tickets to some of the lorries

Agincourt was a long time ago. Please let it go

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

This. Bimbo annoys me intensely on occasions but sometimes he throws in something that makes me think. Either way I’m an adult so can cope.

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:58 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

This. Bimbo annoys me intensely on occasions but sometimes he throws in something that makes me think. Either way I’m an adult so can cope.

1 in 25 is hardly a strike rate to be proud of. He’s just a contrarian who lies and shifts the goalposts every 5th post.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:10 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:58 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

This. Bimbo annoys me intensely on occasions but sometimes he throws in something that makes me think. Either way I’m an adult so can cope.

1 in 25 is hardly a strike rate to be proud of. He’s just a contrarian who lies and shifts the goalposts every 5th post.

As I said, I can cope. One doesn’t have to engage with his more creative opinions if one prefers not to.

Also. There are precious few lively posters on NPR. What is the point of banning the few who enliven the place?

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:18 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:10 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:58 pm

This. Bimbo annoys me intensely on occasions but sometimes he throws in something that makes me think. Either way I’m an adult so can cope.

1 in 25 is hardly a strike rate to be proud of. He’s just a contrarian who lies and shifts the goalposts every 5th post.

As I said, I can cope. One doesn’t have to engage with his more creative opinions if one prefers not to.

It's not a Permaban. Just 2 weeks

He really needs a break as he is obsessed.

Relating to ignoring him, if you are a browser on the phone, you literally get a whole page of "Displaypost by this user"

Stop quoting him as well

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:58 am

Ted. wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:34 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:06 pm


Sorry, you’re claiming that the US health system has collapsed ?


Give your head a wobble.

Do you know the meaning of "large swaths"?

Sigh! Never mind. Into the morons basket you go, along with lying through your teeth and a grossly overinflated sense of your own abilities.

One hospital - “large swathes”


Give your head another wobble.

Ok, to your usual schtick, then, move the posts a little here and there. It's more than obvious that dishonesty is a fundament part of your strategy and why you attract so much odium.

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 2:22 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

I'm all in favour of alternative views but the knee-jerk argumentation does get a bit tedious.

This.

I'm generally in favour of allowing people to express their views, but I prefer them to be expressed honestly without subterfuge and deception.

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:42 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:32 pm

frodder wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:59 pm Let Bimbo back on. He provides an alternative view and we don't want this place to turn into an echo chamber

Now now, let’s not get carried away.

He may be an arse ... but he is our arse!

IMO, Bimbo was just engaging in a bit of robust and spirited debate.

I'd certainly not be keen on that disappearing.

Zapp Bannigan wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:22 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:18 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:10 pm

1 in 25 is hardly a strike rate to be proud of. He’s just a contrarian who lies and shifts the goalposts every 5th post.

As I said, I can cope. One doesn’t have to engage with his more creative opinions if one prefers not to.

It's not a Permaban. Just 2 weeks

He really needs a break as he is obsessed.

Relating to ignoring him, if you are a browser on the phone, you literally get a whole page of "Displaypost by this user"

Stop quoting him as well

The attraction of this place was not having overzealous mods pulling the trigger just because they can or don’t like a poster.

Well done on utterly failing, hand in your mod keys you clearly don’t have the stomach for it.

Is bimbollox banned from PR too? Haven't seen any posts from him there for a while so maybe that's why he's been overactive here lately. Would be fine if it was reasoned counter-arguments instead of reflex strawman every 2 minutes.

Zapp Bannigan wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:22 pm

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:18 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:10 pm

1 in 25 is hardly a strike rate to be proud of. He’s just a contrarian who lies and shifts the goalposts every 5th post.

As I said, I can cope. One doesn’t have to engage with his more creative opinions if one prefers not to.

It's not a Permaban. Just 2 weeks

He really needs a break as he is obsessed.

Relating to ignoring him, if you are a browser on the phone, you literally get a whole page of "Displaypost by this user"

Stop quoting him as well

We shouldn’t be banning people for calling others a cunt. Just my two cents...