NPR

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... dApp_Other

Israel finding one dose isn't as effective as Pfizer thought. But both doses are.

Very significant for the UK where we're counting one dose as vaccinated for the figures. We'll see hopefully not the same issue with AZ.

I like neeps wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:27 pm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... dApp_Other

Israel finding one dose isn't as effective as Pfizer thought. But both doses are.

Very significant for the UK where we're counting one dose as vaccinated for the figures. We'll see hopefully not the same issue with AZ.

We're not counting 1 dose as vaccinated. We're counting double doses, but have made the decision that to get at least partial immunity into a larger group of people in the short term, given the new strain with increased transmissibility, was the better short term solution. We're still counting and tracking dose 1 vs dose 2, and are still targeting 100 million odd doses to complete the adult population

Saint wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:14 pm

I like neeps wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:27 pm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... dApp_Other

Israel finding one dose isn't as effective as Pfizer thought. But both doses are.

Very significant for the UK where we're counting one dose as vaccinated for the figures. We'll see hopefully not the same issue with AZ.

We're not counting 1 dose as vaccinated. We're counting double doses, but have made the decision that to get at least partial immunity into a larger group of people in the short term, given the new strain with increased transmissibility, was the better short term solution. We're still counting and tracking dose 1 vs dose 2, and are still targeting 100 million odd doses to complete the adult population

I can't find any detailed reporting on exactly how much difference they are seeing between what Pfizer says and their own results. Which is unhelpful.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 pm

Saint wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:14 pm

I like neeps wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:27 pm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... dApp_Other

Israel finding one dose isn't as effective as Pfizer thought. But both doses are.

Very significant for the UK where we're counting one dose as vaccinated for the figures. We'll see hopefully not the same issue with AZ.

We're not counting 1 dose as vaccinated. We're counting double doses, but have made the decision that to get at least partial immunity into a larger group of people in the short term, given the new strain with increased transmissibility, was the better short term solution. We're still counting and tracking dose 1 vs dose 2, and are still targeting 100 million odd doses to complete the adult population

I can't find any detailed reporting on exactly how much difference they are seeing between what Pfizer says and their own results. Which is unhelpful.

Probably because not much actually exists.

Generally the data shows that it takes 3 weeks of the initial immunity stage to kick in. We're actually only 5 weeks from the very first non trial vaccination in the UK, and 4 weeks for Israel. So they're working on 1 weeks worth of data from a small subset of the total number vaccinated.

In one sense it's amusing - they'll happily question months of data from the latest Phase 3 trials ever run, but on the flip side they'll take 1-2 weeks worth of data from a small subset and start reporting it as gospel

Saint wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:22 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 pm

Saint wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:14 pm


We're not counting 1 dose as vaccinated. We're counting double doses, but have made the decision that to get at least partial immunity into a larger group of people in the short term, given the new strain with increased transmissibility, was the better short term solution. We're still counting and tracking dose 1 vs dose 2, and are still targeting 100 million odd doses to complete the adult population

I can't find any detailed reporting on exactly how much difference they are seeing between what Pfizer says and their own results. Which is unhelpful.

Probably because not much actually exists.

Generally the data shows that it takes 3 weeks of the initial immunity stage to kick in. We're actually only 5 weeks from the very first non trial vaccination in the UK, and 4 weeks for Israel. So they're working on 1 weeks worth of data from a small subset of the total number vaccinated.

In one sense it's amusing - they'll happily question months of data from the latest Phase 3 trials ever run, but on the flip side they'll take 1-2 weeks worth of data from a small subset and start reporting it as gospel

Agree - there will be more data coming soon. The Israeli data was focused on older pop though so the figures might go up when the look at full age range? I am sure someone clever than me has done the risk assessment and is probably updating it on emerging data as we speak.

dpedin wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:37 pm

Saint wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:22 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 pm

I can't find any detailed reporting on exactly how much difference they are seeing between what Pfizer says and their own results. Which is unhelpful.

Probably because not much actually exists.

Generally the data shows that it takes 3 weeks of the initial immunity stage to kick in. We're actually only 5 weeks from the very first non trial vaccination in the UK, and 4 weeks for Israel. So they're working on 1 weeks worth of data from a small subset of the total number vaccinated.

In one sense it's amusing - they'll happily question months of data from the latest Phase 3 trials ever run, but on the flip side they'll take 1-2 weeks worth of data from a small subset and start reporting it as gospel

Agree - there will be more data coming soon. The Israeli data was focused on older pop though so the figures might go up when the look at full age range? I am sure someone clever than me has done the risk assessment and is probably updating it on emerging data as we speak.

So it's a subset of a subset? It's way too early to try and be drawing any sort of conclusion, or even a guesstimate, from the data currently available. Realistically we ' re not actually going to understand how single dose vs double dose actually worked for 6+ months.

Ivermectin meta-analysis reported in the Financial Times:

"Cheap antiparasitic could cut chance of Covid-19 deaths by up to 75%"

https://www.ft.com/content/e7cb76fc-da9 ... pe=blocked

Denny Crane wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:06 am Ivermectin meta-analysis reported in the Financial Times:

"Cheap antiparasitic could cut chance of Covid-19 deaths by up to 75%"

https://www.ft.com/content/e7cb76fc-da9 ... pe=blocked

Very small study by the looks of it, needs a significantly larger trial to determine how well it works. Only 24 people in the trial, split between treatment and control.

However, if this does prove to work, it’d be very beneficial as it’s a treatment for early stage covid which would look to lower transmission.

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:41 am

Denny Crane wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:06 am Ivermectin meta-analysis reported in the Financial Times:

"Cheap antiparasitic could cut chance of Covid-19 deaths by up to 75%"

https://www.ft.com/content/e7cb76fc-da9 ... pe=blocked

Very small study by the looks of it, needs a significantly larger trial to determine how well it works. Only 24 people in the trial, split between treatment and control.

However, if this does prove to work, it’d be very beneficial as it’s a treatment for early stage covid which would look to lower transmission.

Almost all of the data so far is either not blinded, not peer reviewed, or uses doses strength way outside the current guidance for the use of Invermectin.

There's some "proper" studies going on that should produce results inside the next month or so

Shit - Devi's a Tory now!

Wonder if ivermectin is going to be the next chloroquine ( that was it right?). "Shows" results when very poorly tested by individuals, does poorly when the "corporations" get involved...

Saint wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:22 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 pm

Saint wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:14 pm


We're not counting 1 dose as vaccinated. We're counting double doses, but have made the decision that to get at least partial immunity into a larger group of people in the short term, given the new strain with increased transmissibility, was the better short term solution. We're still counting and tracking dose 1 vs dose 2, and are still targeting 100 million odd doses to complete the adult population

I can't find any detailed reporting on exactly how much difference they are seeing between what Pfizer says and their own results. Which is unhelpful.

Probably because not much actually exists.

Generally the data shows that it takes 3 weeks of the initial immunity stage to kick in. We're actually only 5 weeks from the very first non trial vaccination in the UK, and 4 weeks for Israel. So they're working on 1 weeks worth of data from a small subset of the total number vaccinated.

In one sense it's amusing - they'll happily question months of data from the latest Phase 3 trials ever run, but on the flip side they'll take 1-2 weeks worth of data from a small subset and start reporting it as gospel

So true

It staggers me the rush to report the negative over any positive.

Openside wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:23 am

Saint wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:22 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 pm

I can't find any detailed reporting on exactly how much difference they are seeing between what Pfizer says and their own results. Which is unhelpful.

Probably because not much actually exists.

Generally the data shows that it takes 3 weeks of the initial immunity stage to kick in. We're actually only 5 weeks from the very first non trial vaccination in the UK, and 4 weeks for Israel. So they're working on 1 weeks worth of data from a small subset of the total number vaccinated.

In one sense it's amusing - they'll happily question months of data from the latest Phase 3 trials ever run, but on the flip side they'll take 1-2 weeks worth of data from a small subset and start reporting it as gospel

So true

It staggers me the rush to report the negative over any positive.

Does it? Especially with a population like Israels? I'd be publishing the hell out of that in the hope that people stay home and keep trying to distance, after having the first shot. Otherwise all you're doing is spreading the virus faster again and potentially helping force a mutation that makes the vaccine less effective.

dpedin wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:13 am Shit - Devi's a Tory now!

Its ok she's a true believer again now:

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:52 am

dpedin wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:13 am Shit - Devi's a Tory now!

Its ok she's a true believer again now:

The one thing I think Scotland could have clearly done better if it was Independent is closing borders to international travellers. That's not really a political point, it's a recognition that Scotland is generally an end point of international travel, and we don't have a hub like Heathrow. So it would be easier to do. And as people keep reminding us there'd be a border with England that'd apparently take you longer to get through than the quarantine periods even with out a pandemic.

Raggs wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:28 am
Does it? Especially with a population like Israels? I'd be publishing the hell out of that in the hope that people stay home and keep trying to distance, after having the first shot. Otherwise all you're doing is spreading the virus faster again and potentially helping force a mutation that makes the vaccine less effective.

It's a balance really. On the one hand, everyone is desperate for some good news and quicker way out. On the other if you publish that the vaccine isn't going to save us as quickly as we we thought, then people are going to break distancing rules again in frustration.

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:20 am

Raggs wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:28 am
Does it? Especially with a population like Israels? I'd be publishing the hell out of that in the hope that people stay home and keep trying to distance, after having the first shot. Otherwise all you're doing is spreading the virus faster again and potentially helping force a mutation that makes the vaccine less effective.

It's a balance really. On the one hand, everyone is desperate for some good news and quicker way out. On the other if you publish that the vaccine isn't going to save us as quickly as we we thought, then people are going to break distancing rules again in frustration.

We just need to be responsible adults

The one thing I think Scotland could have clearly done better if it was Independent is closing borders to international travellers. That's not really a political point, it's a recognition that Scotland is generally an end point of international travel, and we don't have a hub like Heathrow. So it would be easier to do. And as people keep reminding us there'd be a border with England that'd apparently take you longer to get through than the quarantine periods even with out a pandemic.

I don't buy this at all. Whilst the power to restrict air travel is reserved the SG has to powers to require negative tests and enforce quarantines on arrival (and make these strict enough they become a de facto travel ban unless your absolutely determined to jump through all the hoops). It could have implemented these last Spring but waited until pretty much the same time us the rest of the UK. Ditto closing its land border with the rest of the UK.

Its nonsense from a somewhat qualified but highly politicised 'advisor' who doesn't understand how devolution works.

Sards wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:25 am

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:20 am

Raggs wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:28 am
Does it? Especially with a population like Israels? I'd be publishing the hell out of that in the hope that people stay home and keep trying to distance, after having the first shot. Otherwise all you're doing is spreading the virus faster again and potentially helping force a mutation that makes the vaccine less effective.

It's a balance really. On the one hand, everyone is desperate for some good news and quicker way out. On the other if you publish that the vaccine isn't going to save us as quickly as we we thought, then people are going to break distancing rules again in frustration.

We just need to be responsible adults

Which is hard to do when you're reading sensationalist headlines like this.

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:36 am

The one thing I think Scotland could have clearly done better if it was Independent is closing borders to international travellers. That's not really a political point, it's a recognition that Scotland is generally an end point of international travel, and we don't have a hub like Heathrow. So it would be easier to do. And as people keep reminding us there'd be a border with England that'd apparently take you longer to get through than the quarantine periods even with out a pandemic.

I don't buy this at all. Whilst the power to restrict air travel is reserved the SG has to powers to require negative tests and enforce quarantines on arrival (and make these strict enough they become a de facto travel ban unless your absolutely determined to jump through all the hoops). It could have implemented these last Spring but waited until pretty much the same time us the rest of the UK. Ditto closing its land border with the rest of the UK.

Its nonsense from a somewhat qualified but highly politicised 'advisor' who doesn't understand how devolution works.

There's a difference between letting people in and quarantining and not letting people in imo. I don't expect you to agree in any way given previous discussions on travel.

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:43 am

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:36 am

The one thing I think Scotland could have clearly done better if it was Independent is closing borders to international travellers. That's not really a political point, it's a recognition that Scotland is generally an end point of international travel, and we don't have a hub like Heathrow. So it would be easier to do. And as people keep reminding us there'd be a border with England that'd apparently take you longer to get through than the quarantine periods even with out a pandemic.

I don't buy this at all. Whilst the power to restrict air travel is reserved the SG has to powers to require negative tests and enforce quarantines on arrival (and make these strict enough they become a de facto travel ban unless your absolutely determined to jump through all the hoops). It could have implemented these last Spring but waited until pretty much the same time us the rest of the UK. Ditto closing its land border with the rest of the UK.

Its nonsense from a somewhat qualified but highly politicised 'advisor' who doesn't understand how devolution works.

There's a difference between letting people in and quarantining and not letting people in imo. I don't expect you to agree in any way given previous discussions on travel.

Ok fair enough we can disagree on this (the SG could have suspended airports license under Transport regulations too BTW). But can you recall the SG making a request or at least indicating it wanted to suspend international air travel and this being rebuffed by the UK?

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:52 am

dpedin wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:13 am Shit - Devi's a Tory now!

Its ok she's a true believer again now:

Thank feck for that! Thought she had gone over to the dark side!

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:46 am

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:43 am

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:36 am

I don't buy this at all. Whilst the power to restrict air travel is reserved the SG has to powers to require negative tests and enforce quarantines on arrival (and make these strict enough they become a de facto travel ban unless your absolutely determined to jump through all the hoops). It could have implemented these last Spring but waited until pretty much the same time us the rest of the UK. Ditto closing its land border with the rest of the UK.

Its nonsense from a somewhat qualified but highly politicised 'advisor' who doesn't understand how devolution works.

There's a difference between letting people in and quarantining and not letting people in imo. I don't expect you to agree in any way given previous discussions on travel.

Ok fair enough we can disagree on this (the SG could have suspended airports license under Transport regulations too BTW). But can you recall the SG making a request or at least indicating it wanted to suspend international air travel and this being rebuffed by the UK?

I remember when the SG talked about barring travellers from the rest of the UK and everyone went ballistic.

But its difficult to tell what was and wasn't discussed but disregarded because it might have been thought of as reserved or grey area. None of us can say what the difference would have been really, an Indy Scotland might have followed a different model, who knows.

25,000 received first vaccination in Scotland yesterday. 90% of care home residents now done. SG says on track to do all of groups one and two by first week in February.

92 deaths registered yesterday, higher than recently. Cases still look like they are declining. Hospital and ICU numbers still creeping up but the increase has slowed, should level off in the next week with a bit of luck.

They're hoping to get all over 50's done by the end of April I gather (England), so a good few weeks yet for me.

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:34 pm

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:46 am

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:43 am

There's a difference between letting people in and quarantining and not letting people in imo. I don't expect you to agree in any way given previous discussions on travel.

Ok fair enough we can disagree on this (the SG could have suspended airports license under Transport regulations too BTW). But can you recall the SG making a request or at least indicating it wanted to suspend international air travel and this being rebuffed by the UK?

I remember when the SG talked about barring travellers from the rest of the UK and everyone went ballistic.

But its difficult to tell what was and wasn't discussed but disregarded because it might have been thought of as reserved or grey area. None of us can say what the difference would have been really, an Indy Scotland might have followed a different model, who knows.

Devi's pretty sure it would be better.

I guess its just as likely Salmond's (assuming his 'manner' with female colleagues had not derailed his leadership) administration makes worse choices - and indeed lack of measures like furlough and support for business means lockdown goes a lot harder (you cant print someone elses money)

tabascoboy wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:42 pm They're hoping to get all over 50's done by the end of April I gather (England), so a good few weeks yet for me.

That's a UK target, all the nations are aiming for that, and to have the priority 1-4 groups done by mid-late February. Difference in approaches is within those general targets.

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:45 pm

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:34 pm

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:46 am

Ok fair enough we can disagree on this (the SG could have suspended airports license under Transport regulations too BTW). But can you recall the SG making a request or at least indicating it wanted to suspend international air travel and this being rebuffed by the UK?

I remember when the SG talked about barring travellers from the rest of the UK and everyone went ballistic.

But its difficult to tell what was and wasn't discussed but disregarded because it might have been thought of as reserved or grey area. None of us can say what the difference would have been really, an Indy Scotland might have followed a different model, who knows.

Devi's pretty sure it would be better.

I guess its just as likely Salmond's (assuming his 'manner' with female colleagues had not derailed his leadership) administration makes worse choices - and indeed lack of measures like furlough and support for business means lockdown goes a lot harder (you cant print someone elses money)

All things are possible. We could equally have been closer to the Norwegian, Finnish or Danish outcomes.

I'm not just going to agree with DS because she's an indy supporter. I'm not tribal like that.

Saint wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:38 am

Sards wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:25 am

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:20 am

It's a balance really. On the one hand, everyone is desperate for some good news and quicker way out. On the other if you publish that the vaccine isn't going to save us as quickly as we we thought, then people are going to break distancing rules again in frustration.

We just need to be responsible adults

Which is hard to do when you're reading sensationalist headlines like this.

Or you're a muppet like Sards who thinks "it's just the flu and my friends are I are too important to follow the rules...."

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:41 pm 25,000 received first vaccination in Scotland yesterday. 90% of care home residents now done. SG says on track to do all of groups one and two by first week in February.

I whole-heartedly believe the care-home residents should be first in the queue. However a couple aged 78 who live alone in their own house and are perfectly capable of socially distancing for another 3 months, should wait until all 1st responders and NHS workers are jabbed twice.

We should be vaccinating based of risk of infection, not risk of death.

Back to 300kish which is good but now we are chasing a 380k daily target to hit the mid Feb objective.

EDIT - including other UK nations we are now closer to 340-50k (cant find NI info yet) which is better.

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:52 am

dpedin wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:13 am Shit - Devi's a Tory now!

Its ok she's a true believer again now:

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:38 pm

tc27 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:45 pm

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:34 pm

I remember when the SG talked about barring travellers from the rest of the UK and everyone went ballistic.

But its difficult to tell what was and wasn't discussed but disregarded because it might have been thought of as reserved or grey area. None of us can say what the difference would have been really, an Indy Scotland might have followed a different model, who knows.

Devi's pretty sure it would be better.

I guess its just as likely Salmond's (assuming his 'manner' with female colleagues had not derailed his leadership) administration makes worse choices - and indeed lack of measures like furlough and support for business means lockdown goes a lot harder (you cant print someone elses money)

All things are possible. We could equally have been closer to the Norwegian, Finnish or Danish outcomes.

I'm not just going to agree with DS because she's an indy supporter. I'm not tribal like that.

Your entitled to make that claim but without the fiscal firepower of a central bank (enjoyed by all those nations) perhaps not as likely. Also we can actually compare the public health response of the SG against those nations.......

DS isn't just idly musing on this matter she's making clear statements in favour of one faction in Scottish politics. I would hope even someone who might agree with her politics would see how this isn't really tenable for someone in a public health position (and who is frequently quoted as a objective expert. There are plenty of public health experts and actual epidemiologists who aren't overtly political. As a final point blaming the UK government for issues entirely within the competence of the SG to fix is a really tedious nationalist habit and lets the people responsible for strings of bad decisions of the hook. And its just shallow commentary deserving of ridicule.

Priti Patel was in favour of closing the borders in March last year, she has claimed.

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:24 pm Priti Patel was in favour of closing the borders in March last year, she has claimed.

She also said they were following scientific advice and quite clearly blaming the scientists for why it didn't happen
I'm sure Johnson will be privately thanking her later

Boris Johnson has refused to say why he overruled Priti Patel and kept UK borders open when the pandemic broke out.
Put under pressure in the Commons – after the Home Secretary’s astonishing revelation that she recommended closure last March – the prime minister twice ducked the question.
The fateful decision – taken without “any scientific evidence” to justify it, an investigation later found – is blamed for making the Covid-19 death toll “far worse” than if restrictions had been imposed.
It meant hundreds of Covid-infected passengers arrived every day – particularly from Spain, Italy and France – as the UK stood “almost unique” in rejecting border checks, a report by MPs said.

SaintK wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:41 pm

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:24 pm Priti Patel was in favour of closing the borders in March last year, she has claimed.

She also said they were following scientific advice and quite clearly blaming the scientists for why it didn't happen
I'm sure Johnson will be privately thanking her later

Boris Johnson has refused to say why he overruled Priti Patel and kept UK borders open when the pandemic broke out.
Put under pressure in the Commons – after the Home Secretary’s astonishing revelation that she recommended closure last March – the prime minister twice ducked the question.
The fateful decision – taken without “any scientific evidence” to justify it, an investigation later found – is blamed for making the Covid-19 death toll “far worse” than if restrictions had been imposed.
It meant hundreds of Covid-infected passengers arrived every day – particularly from Spain, Italy and France – as the UK stood “almost unique” in rejecting border checks, a report by MPs said.

But surely we had no control over our borders until 1 Jan 2021 ??

SaintK wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:41 pm

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:24 pm Priti Patel was in favour of closing the borders in March last year, she has claimed.

She also said they were following scientific advice and quite clearly blaming the scientists for why it didn't happen
I'm sure Johnson will be privately thanking her later

Boris Johnson has refused to say why he overruled Priti Patel and kept UK borders open when the pandemic broke out.
Put under pressure in the Commons – after the Home Secretary’s astonishing revelation that she recommended closure last March – the prime minister twice ducked the question.
The fateful decision – taken without “any scientific evidence” to justify it, an investigation later found – is blamed for making the Covid-19 death toll “far worse” than if restrictions had been imposed.
It meant hundreds of Covid-infected passengers arrived every day – particularly from Spain, Italy and France – as the UK stood “almost unique” in rejecting border checks, a report by MPs said.

Positioning for the coming leadership election.

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:51 pm Positioning for the coming leadership election.

Another hard, bitch ex-Home Secretary as PM? God help us all!

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:48 pm

SaintK wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:41 pm

Biffer wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:24 pm Priti Patel was in favour of closing the borders in March last year, she has claimed.

She also said they were following scientific advice and quite clearly blaming the scientists for why it didn't happen
I'm sure Johnson will be privately thanking her later

Boris Johnson has refused to say why he overruled Priti Patel and kept UK borders open when the pandemic broke out.
Put under pressure in the Commons – after the Home Secretary’s astonishing revelation that she recommended closure last March – the prime minister twice ducked the question.
The fateful decision – taken without “any scientific evidence” to justify it, an investigation later found – is blamed for making the Covid-19 death toll “far worse” than if restrictions had been imposed.
It meant hundreds of Covid-infected passengers arrived every day – particularly from Spain, Italy and France – as the UK stood “almost unique” in rejecting border checks, a report by MPs said.

But surely we had no control over our borders until 1 Jan 2021 ??

Yeah. I'm not sure how legal closing the borders to the EU would have been till the start of the year. Closing to China/USA etc though should have been possible