NPR

https://news.sky.com/story/test-and-tra ... k-12235392

COVID-19: Test and Trace barely used check-in data from pubs and restaurants - with thousands not warned of infection risk

Data from hundreds of millions of check-ins by people who visited pubs, restaurants and hairdressers before lockdown was barely used by Test and Trace, according to a confidential report obtained by Sky News.

The report admits that the failure of the £22bn (£37 Bn) service to use the data for alerts or contact tracing meant "thousands of people" were not warned they might be at risk of infection, "potentially leading to the spread of the virus."

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:01 am
You simply can't compare the scale out operations of AZ vs Pfizera and Moderna as they are entirely different technologies and processes to scale out. It should probably also be recognized that AZ have a contract with Aus that is likely at the same level as the EU in terms of priority and that they are undersupplying Aus even if the export had gone through. As for motivation to get this right, the long term goodwill and PR generated by being seen to be a leader in the Covid vaccination effort drastically exceeds the potential profit any of the Pharmas will make, and they know it.

Thanks, you're welcome to point out my ignorance of the difference in scalability (we're obviously targeting different aspects and tangents), but the nuances of vaccine supply scalability are more bespoke (welcome, but bespoke) than the principal of what constitutes vaccine nationalism/state interference and in the production to begin with. In my opinion both approaches are reflective of that, probably the only point I'm trying to make. You're welcome to say from your point of greater knowledge that the nuances in aligning supply to enhance national production don't reflect nationalism (or implications are significantly less than actions of post production intervention - I don't actually know your position), and I can appreciate that. In my ideal world the free market would have been able to engage and arrange without need of state support, but of course it's not the world we're in.

I'm aware of the goodwill calc, I've laid out some of the reasons why I don't think it's reflective of a sufficiently capitalist approach (net of goodwill for completeness), and simply wonder if the profit incentive was higher, what the results would be. I personally think it's great for the wider world that AZ are doing this - not sure they (people or governments) will remember it to make it first port of call. Perhaps with sufficient PR they will. Eg I don't know which company(IES) 'eliminated' polio, but perhaps I am in the minority or modern media can resolve that for Covid.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:14 am https://news.sky.com/story/test-and-tra ... k-12235392

COVID-19: Test and Trace barely used check-in data from pubs and restaurants - with thousands not warned of infection risk

Data from hundreds of millions of check-ins by people who visited pubs, restaurants and hairdressers before lockdown was barely used by Test and Trace, according to a confidential report obtained by Sky News.

The report admits that the failure of the £22bn (£37 Bn) service to use the data for alerts or contact tracing meant "thousands of people" were not warned they might be at risk of infection, "potentially leading to the spread of the virus."

I wonder if there was pressure from Whitehall not to show how dangerous "Eat out to Help out" actually was?

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:19 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:14 am https://news.sky.com/story/test-and-tra ... k-12235392

COVID-19: Test and Trace barely used check-in data from pubs and restaurants - with thousands not warned of infection risk

Data from hundreds of millions of check-ins by people who visited pubs, restaurants and hairdressers before lockdown was barely used by Test and Trace, according to a confidential report obtained by Sky News.

The report admits that the failure of the £22bn (£37 Bn) service to use the data for alerts or contact tracing meant "thousands of people" were not warned they might be at risk of infection, "potentially leading to the spread of the virus."

I wonder if there was pressure from Whitehall not to show how dangerous "Eat out to Help out" actually was?

So the government are chucking a further £15Bn at this continuing failing scheme as announced in the budget but aren't putting an additional single penny into social care and in fact have reduced the health budget by £30Bn from April this year
Staggering!

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.

Just back from getting the first jab (AZ), feeling OK so far. Everything very slick and well run.

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 so much 'hate', more the eye watering amount of money it appears to be costing. Trident, for comparison, costs about £5bn per year. The entire UK defence budget for 2020 was £41bn.

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?

dkm57 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:40 pm Just back from getting the first jab (AZ), feeling OK so far. Everything very slick and well run.

You may not feel too bright the following day
I felt tired and listless for 24 hours. My wife who had hers yesterday morning had a bit of a fever durring the night and feels shoddy today
Nothing that is not unexpected mind

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?

On top of a pile of money, surrounded by many handsome men.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/cham ... 22419.html

Government failed to publish 504 Covid-19 contracts in time – High Court
....
in respect of 504 of the 535 contracts awarded on or before October 7 2020 – i.e. 94%”.

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:54 pm

dkm57 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:40 pm Just back from getting the first jab (AZ), feeling OK so far. Everything very slick and well run.

You may not feel too bright the following day
I felt tired and listless for 24 hours. My wife who had hers yesterday morning had a bit of a fever durring the night and feels shoddy today
Nothing that is not unexpected mind

A couple of friends have has the AZ vaccine. One didn't notice it at all and the other was absolutely floored for 3 days. YMMV.

Just to go back to previous discussion, it appears that the b117 is the dominant strain in Denmark and France. Denmark appears to be smashing the sequencing too.

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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:43 pm Just to go back to previous discussion, it appears that the b117 is the dominant strain in Denmark and France. Denmark appears to be smashing the sequencing too.

Bastard virus is just warming up.....

ScoMo calls out Italy's atrocious actions, preparing for war:

Australia's prime minister on Friday played down the impact of Italy's landmark decision to block the export of 250,000 Covid-19 vaccine doses due to be delivered.

Scott Morrison insisted the blocked shipment of the AstraZeneca jabs was understandable and would not affect Australia's vaccine programme.

"This particular shipment was not one we'd counted on for the rollout, and so we will continue unabated," Morrison said.

Morrison expressed sympathy: "In Italy, people are dying at the rate of 300 a day. And so I can certainly understand the high level of anxiety that would exist in Italy and in many countries across Europe."

"They are in an unbridled crisis situation. That is not the situation in Australia," he added.

Australia's chief medical officer, Paul Kelly, also offered solidarity: "My sister lives in Italy. They're at the moment having 18,000 cases a day."

Still, Italy's export ban rekindled accusations of "vaccine nationalism", something Morrison pushed back against pointing to the "large amount of vaccines" that have already left the European Union.

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/austr ... 51550.html

That sounds like the opposite of "calling out".

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:43 pm That sounds like the opposite of "calling out".

Terrible whoosh

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:43 pm That sounds like the opposite of "calling out".

I think TNS was ironing a bit.

Frankly Scott Morrison made the Ursula and the rest of the EU politicians look a bit amateur

TheNatalShark wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:09 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:43 pm That sounds like the opposite of "calling out".

Terrible whoosh

Guilty as charged.

It’s being reported that Germany is to rewrite its vaccination plan and follow Britain’s ‘reckless’ plan of delaying the second dose of coronavirus vaccines.

Tbf, it was reckless. It was a gamble that paid off. Doing it now isn't a gamble.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:09 pm Tbf, it was reckless. It was a gamble that paid off. Doing it now isn't a gamble.

Wasn’t it a calculated risk that limited immunity in a larger population was better than increased immunity in a small portion of the population, and so not reckless? The fact it appears to have improved efficacy was an unintended benefit.

Lobby wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:38 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:09 pm Tbf, it was reckless. It was a gamble that paid off. Doing it now isn't a gamble.

Wasn’t it a calculated risk that limited immunity in a larger population was better than increased immunity in a small portion of the population, and so not reckless? The fact it appears to have improved efficacy was an unintended benefit.

It was reckless because they didn't know whether it would actually work. It could have rendered the first round of jabs meaningless. All the data was based on two jabs at specific times.

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:54 pm

dkm57 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:40 pm Just back from getting the first jab (AZ), feeling OK so far. Everything very slick and well run.

You may not feel too bright the following day
I felt tired and listless for 24 hours. My wife who had hers yesterday morning had a bit of a fever durring the night and feels shoddy today
Nothing that is not unexpected mind

This like running into a very soft padded wall, feeling really quite sh!t so have taken refuge in my pit.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:44 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:38 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:09 pm Tbf, it was reckless. It was a gamble that paid off. Doing it now isn't a gamble.

Wasn’t it a calculated risk that limited immunity in a larger population was better than increased immunity in a small portion of the population, and so not reckless? The fact it appears to have improved efficacy was an unintended benefit.

It was reckless because they didn't know whether it would actually work. It could have rendered the first round of jabs meaningless. All the data was based on two jabs at specific times.

They knew that the first jab offered some efficacy on it's own, since they had at least 21 days of data (arguably more, since the effects of the second wouldn't have kicked in on day 1). That efficacy was lower than is now being shown, but even before the government decided to do it, I was posting here saying it could be smarter to focus on single doses to more people, if the jump between the first and 2nd dose was something like 65-95. At the time, the Pfizer didn't seem to be worth it on the numbers we were given back then, but AZ did seem to be. That efficacy increased further after 21 days from a single dose may have also been an educated guess, as we have many single dose vaccines that could give similar results (albeit not so much with pfizer).

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:17 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:44 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:38 pm

Wasn’t it a calculated risk that limited immunity in a larger population was better than increased immunity in a small portion of the population, and so not reckless? The fact it appears to have improved efficacy was an unintended benefit.

It was reckless because they didn't know whether it would actually work. It could have rendered the first round of jabs meaningless. All the data was based on two jabs at specific times.

They knew that the first jab offered some efficacy on it's own, since they had at least 21 days of data (arguably more, since the effects of the second wouldn't have kicked in on day 1). That efficacy was lower than is now being shown, but even before the government decided to do it, I was posting here saying it could be smarter to focus on single doses to more people, if the jump between the first and 2nd dose was something like 65-95. At the time, the Pfizer didn't seem to be worth it on the numbers we were given back then, but AZ did seem to be. That efficacy increased further after 21 days from a single dose may have also been an educated guess, as we have many single dose vaccines that could give similar results (albeit not so much with pfizer).

They didn't know how long the immunity conferred by a single jab would last for.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:44 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:38 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:09 pm Tbf, it was reckless. It was a gamble that paid off. Doing it now isn't a gamble.

Wasn’t it a calculated risk that limited immunity in a larger population was better than increased immunity in a small portion of the population, and so not reckless? The fact it appears to have improved efficacy was an unintended benefit.

It was reckless because they didn't know whether it would actually work. It could have rendered the first round of jabs meaningless. All the data was based on two jabs at specific times.

Reckless is a very strong term. There was a very large agreement that in general, vaccines work better with a second dose, and also a strong general understanding that delaying the second dose beyond 3 weeks usually results in better long term immunity. Remember, the drive for testing with a 3 week second dose came out of the FDA in an attempt to combat some of the antivax sentiment coming out of the US. That's part of the reason that the AZ trials had such a broad range if dosinges m that made it difficult to really understand the published results

Specific to the UK,htge concept that 70% immunity in a broad levels of the population would do better than 90% in a much narrower population also comes into the equation

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:33 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:44 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:38 pm

Wasn’t it a calculated risk that limited immunity in a larger population was better than increased immunity in a small portion of the population, and so not reckless? The fact it appears to have improved efficacy was an unintended benefit.

It was reckless because they didn't know whether it would actually work. It could have rendered the first round of jabs meaningless. All the data was based on two jabs at specific times.

Reckless is a very strong term. There was a very large agreement that in general, vaccines work better with a second dose, and also a strong general understanding that delaying the second dose beyond 3 weeks usually results in better long term immunity. Remember, the drive for testing with a 3 week second dose came out of the FDA in an attempt to combat some of the antivax sentiment coming out of the US. That's part of the reason that the AZ trials had such a broad range if dosinges m that made it difficult to really understand the published results

Specific to the UK,htge concept that 70% immunity in a broad levels of the population would do better than 90% in a much narrower population also comes into the equation

70% for how long? What data were we working off?

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:37 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:33 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:44 pm

It was reckless because they didn't know whether it would actually work. It could have rendered the first round of jabs meaningless. All the data was based on two jabs at specific times.

Reckless is a very strong term. There was a very large agreement that in general, vaccines work better with a second dose, and also a strong general understanding that delaying the second dose beyond 3 weeks usually results in better long term immunity. Remember, the drive for testing with a 3 week second dose came out of the FDA in an attempt to combat some of the antivax sentiment coming out of the US. That's part of the reason that the AZ trials had such a broad range if dosinges m that made it difficult to really understand the published results

Specific to the UK,htge concept that 70% immunity in a broad levels of the population would do better than 90% in a much narrower population also comes into the equation

70% for how long? What data were we working off?

If it wasn't going to confer immunity for 12 weeks from a single dose, I doubt it would have been much use after several either.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:37 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:33 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:44 pm

It was reckless because they didn't know whether it would actually work. It could have rendered the first round of jabs meaningless. All the data was based on two jabs at specific times.

Reckless is a very strong term. There was a very large agreement that in general, vaccines work better with a second dose, and also a strong general understanding that delaying the second dose beyond 3 weeks usually results in better long term immunity. Remember, the drive for testing with a 3 week second dose came out of the FDA in an attempt to combat some of the antivax sentiment coming out of the US. That's part of the reason that the AZ trials had such a broad range if dosinges m that made it difficult to really understand the published results

Specific to the UK,htge concept that 70% immunity in a broad levels of the population would do better than 90% in a much narrower population also comes into the equation

70% for how long? What data were we working off?

Like I said, we weren't working off data per se, more a general understanding of how stuff worked once we it was known that it was delivering some degree of efficacy.

We have no today idea how long 60% would last (or 60% or 50% or whatever) but we have no real data on what a double dose after a 3 week period will offer either

What we do have us an accumulation of knowledge over the last 40-50 years that if x happens, y will follow. I would describe the situation as a very carefully calculated risk that historical data supported

Sounds like a bunch of Euros arguing about Covid conspiracy bull tonight.

Fight the lizard people!!!!

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:47 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:37 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:33 pm

Reckless is a very strong term. There was a very large agreement that in general, vaccines work better with a second dose, and also a strong general understanding that delaying the second dose beyond 3 weeks usually results in better long term immunity. Remember, the drive for testing with a 3 week second dose came out of the FDA in an attempt to combat some of the antivax sentiment coming out of the US. That's part of the reason that the AZ trials had such a broad range if dosinges m that made it difficult to really understand the published results

Specific to the UK,htge concept that 70% immunity in a broad levels of the population would do better than 90% in a much narrower population also comes into the equation

70% for how long? What data were we working off?

If it wasn't going to confer immunity for 12 weeks from a single dose, I doubt it would have been much use after several either.

Except for the stronger reaction the second jabs provokes.

We know that 8-10 weeks is when you start to lose immunity protection for some vaccines that last a lot longer with two jabs.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:37 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:33 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:44 pm

It was reckless because they didn't know whether it would actually work. It could have rendered the first round of jabs meaningless. All the data was based on two jabs at specific times.

Reckless is a very strong term. There was a very large agreement that in general, vaccines work better with a second dose, and also a strong general understanding that delaying the second dose beyond 3 weeks usually results in better long term immunity. Remember, the drive for testing with a 3 week second dose came out of the FDA in an attempt to combat some of the antivax sentiment coming out of the US. That's part of the reason that the AZ trials had such a broad range if dosinges m that made it difficult to really understand the published results

Specific to the UK,htge concept that 70% immunity in a broad levels of the population would do better than 90% in a much narrower population also comes into the equation

70% for how long? What data were we working off?

What reason would there be to believe this vaccine would work in a radically different way from every other vaccine?

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:50 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:37 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:33 pm

Reckless is a very strong term. There was a very large agreement that in general, vaccines work better with a second dose, and also a strong general understanding that delaying the second dose beyond 3 weeks usually results in better long term immunity. Remember, the drive for testing with a 3 week second dose came out of the FDA in an attempt to combat some of the antivax sentiment coming out of the US. That's part of the reason that the AZ trials had such a broad range if dosinges m that made it difficult to really understand the published results

Specific to the UK,htge concept that 70% immunity in a broad levels of the population would do better than 90% in a much narrower population also comes into the equation

70% for how long? What data were we working off?

What reason would there be to believe this vaccine would work in a radically different way from every other vaccine?

It was never just; 'this vaccine'; it was always a half dozen different vaccines; & some more traditional; & some using mRNA.

I'm not sure what the bigger risk was; making the gap between injections larger; or relying on the different vaccines being compatible enough; & available enough to mix between 1st & 2nd Injections

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:50 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:37 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:33 pm

Reckless is a very strong term. There was a very large agreement that in general, vaccines work better with a second dose, and also a strong general understanding that delaying the second dose beyond 3 weeks usually results in better long term immunity. Remember, the drive for testing with a 3 week second dose came out of the FDA in an attempt to combat some of the antivax sentiment coming out of the US. That's part of the reason that the AZ trials had such a broad range if dosinges m that made it difficult to really understand the published results

Specific to the UK,htge concept that 70% immunity in a broad levels of the population would do better than 90% in a much narrower population also comes into the equation

70% for how long? What data were we working off?

What reason would there be to believe this vaccine would work in a radically different way from every other vaccine?

Other vaccines requiring a second dose for proper efficacy also have a drop off after x number of weeks.

In fact, here's a source - while defending the delaying of a second jab because he believes it's important to speed up the normal process in a crisis - saying exactly that:

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/risks-delay ... 15305.html

Dr. Reggie Lo, professor emeritus at the University of Guelph, concurs.

..

"When Moderna did the Phase 3 trial, it is likely that time was of the essence and they went with the four week span between shots,” he explains. “If they had more time, they might have tried a longer time span between shots to examine effectiveness. Hence the four week between shots could be an arbitrary time based on the trial conducted.”

He adds that there are other vaccines that have a longer time span between first and second shot, and over a range of months. But based on the human immune response, it is probably acceptable to have a time span of eight to 10 weeks between shots before losing immune protection.

and here's some researchers pushing for a single-dose focus (albeit with 90%+ efficacy) while admitting exactly what I'm talking about: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/researchers-u ... 12633.html

Skowronski and De Serres cautioned that there may be uncertainty about the duration of protection with a single dose, but said the administration of the second dose a month after the first provided "little added benefit in the short term".

I understand the arguments in favour. But it's still a gamble. As these people have acknowledged. And at least they're working off a lot more data than the UK Gov did when it made its call.

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.

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.

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.

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.